1.

Environmental 

Assessment 

LA 23 New Orleans & Gulf Coast 

Railway Relocation 

PE/NEPA Project 

Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, 

Louisiana 

RPC Task LA23RR1 

RPC/FRA Grant # FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00 

April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 

The preparation of this report was financed by a grant from the Federal Railroad Administration 

in accordance with Grant Agreement FR-RLD-0032-14-01 and local funding provided by the 

Regional Planning Commission, City of Gretna, Jefferson Parish, Plaquemines Parish and the 

Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District. The Phase II Cultural Resources Survey was 

financed by the New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Co. 

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the 

facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the 

official views or policies of the Regional Planning Commission, the State or the Federal Railroad 

Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

23 U.S.C. 409 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or 

data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing 

any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing 

Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a 

Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages 

arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, 

schedules, lists, or data. 

Prepared by: 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

In association with: 

Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. 

GCR, Inc. 

Earth Search, Inc. 

Leaaf Environmental, LLC 

The Hawthorne Agency, Inc.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Project Overview 

The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, 

St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes (RPC) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

entered into a grant agreement in 2015 to conduct an environmental review and prepare an 

environmental document for the relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway 

that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast 

Louisiana (Project). The FRA is the lead Federal agency for the oversight of the environmental 

process. The Federal agency that agreed to participate in the development of this 

environmental document as a cooperating agency is the Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base 

New Orleans (NAS JRB). Federal agencies that agreed to participate in the development of this 

environmental document as participating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Class of Action is an environmental assessment 

(EA), which leads to a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) if there are no significant impacts 

associated with the proposed rail relocation project (Project). This EA was conducted in 

conformance with the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 

(May 26, 1999) and 49 CFR Part 260.35. 

Currently, there is no funding identified for construction of the Project. If FRA funding is used 

to construct the Project, FRA would require the future project sponsor, which is most likely Rio 

Grande Pacific Corporation (RGPC), to comply with the commitments and mitigation measures 

outlined in this document. 

Current Rail Operations/Infrastructure 

The NOGC Railway is a 32-mile long shortline railroad that operates on the “Westbank” of New 

Orleans, Louisiana serving Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes. The NOGC currently 

interchanges with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Westwego, Louisiana. Interchange 

between the UPRR and NOGC is handled through a Handling Carrier Arrangement (Interchange 

Agreement). The NOGC currently serves over 20 switching and industrial customers and is the 

only railroad operating on the Westbank of New Orleans. The UPRR and NOGC alignment is 

located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are 

approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length 

within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing atgrade crossings are located in the Study Area as defined in the next section. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-2 

Study Area 

The “Study Area” for the Project encompasses portions of the City of Gretna, unincorporated 

Jefferson Parish including Harvey and Terrytown, and Plaquemines Parish. The boundaries of 

the Study Area are the Harvey Canal on the west, the Mississippi River on the north, the 

Jefferson/Orleans Parish line on the east, and Walker Road on the south as shown in 

Figure ES-1. The portion of the NOGC Railway that is subject to analysis within this EA extends 

from the west side of the Harvey Canal, in Harvey to near the intersection of Louisiana Highway 

23 (LA 23)/Belle Chasse Highway and Walker Road in Belle Chasse; a distance of approximately 

16 miles. 

On the western limit of the Study Area near the Harvey Canal, the NOGC rail corridor parallels 

LA 18 (4th Street) on the north side and then merges into 4th Street in downtown Gretna. The 

tracks are located within the center of 4th Street between Dolhonde Street and Amelia Street 

for approximately 0.46 miles. The NOGC Railway also runs within Madison Street between 

Americus Street and Stumpf Boulevard for approximately 0.73 miles. Within these limits, the 

adjacent land use consists of densely developed residences, businesses, schools and churches. 

The City of Gretna and Jefferson Parish West Bank government offices are located within 

downtown Gretna. 

Beginning south of US Highway 90 Business (US 90B)/Westbank Expressway and extending to 

Walker Road in Belle Chasse, the NOGC Railway parallels LA 23 for the majority of its length. 

However, a short segment of the rail corridor diverges from the LA 23 right-of-way and runs 

parallel to the Mississippi River Levee/Highway 11 then re-emerges back into the LA 23 corridor 

near Russell Drive. Russell Drive is the main entrance to the NAS JRB, a Navy airport located in 

the southern portion of the Study Area. Land use adjacent to LA 23 is developed similar to land 

use patterns along key roadways within Gretna, i.e., densely developed residences, businesses, 

schools and churches. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-3 

Figure ES-1. Study Area Overview Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-4 

Purpose and Need 

Vehicular and train traffic is projected to increase within the Study Area due to normal growth 

in population and NOGC-projected increases in level of industry.1 Highway-rail traffic conflicts 

have an adverse impact on the Westbank community including both residential and 

employment populations. These impacts include safety, congestion, mobility, and quality of life 

issues. The Project is needed to reduce these impacts and improve current and future 

congestion, safety, capacity, and livability issues in the region. The Project’s purpose and need 

statement is to: 

 Improve safety 

 Relieve congestion 

 Improve emergency access and evacuation 

 Enhance quality of life 

 Improve efficiency of rail operations 

Alternatives Analysis 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., requires that all 

of the reasonable alternatives that could achieve the purpose and need for the Project be 

considered. As part of the tiered Alternatives Analysis process, alternatives were evaluated 

during various stages of development that consisted of the following stages: 

 Review of prior studies pertaining to the development and feasibility of rail realignment 

alternatives in the following reports (available from RPC upon request): 

o Plaquemines Parish Intermodal Feasibility Study (DMJM Harris 2002) 

o Conceptual Engineering Report, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway, Proposed 

Railroad Relocation & Extension, Jefferson & Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana

(HDR 2011a) 

o Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) IV Grant 

Application, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railroad, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana 

(USDOT 2012) 

 Tier I – conceptual alignment options 

 Tier II – preliminary alternatives 

 Tier II – refinement of preliminary alternatives 

 Selection of the Preferred Alternative 

 

1

 Vehicular traffic projections based on LADOTD Historic Traffic Count Data and RPC Travel Demand Model 2040 and 2044 

Network. Refer to the Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions, July 2015 and Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build Conditions 

(2040), December 2015 (available from the RPC upon request). Train traffic projections based on NOGC railway estimates. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-5 

The Alternatives Analysis involved the interaction of several government agencies, officials, 

stakeholders, the Project Management Committee (PMC), and the public in order to compare 

and contrast the alternatives developed for the Project. These entities assisted in the 

development of Project alternatives, identified additional alternatives, and provided guidance 

in the evaluation of alternatives. 

Conceptual Alignment Options 

One of the initial tasks for the EA was to conduct an Alternatives Analysis on an initial set of 

alternatives that were defined as the conceptual alignment options. Four conceptual alignment 

options were derived from alternatives that were defined within the prior studies listed above. 

The four conceptual alignment options were then evaluated to identify potential fatal flaws 

(e.g. routes that were not geometrically or engineeringly feasible) and to screen out the options 

that showed the least amount of promise, or were deemed unreasonable upon further analysis. 

Based on the analysis of potential impacts, the outcome of this task resulted in eliminating 

Conceptual Alignment Option 1 and Conceptual Alignment Option 4. These options were 

eliminated, using predetermined screening criteria, due to greater numbers of residential 

impacts, higher construction costs (three required movable bridges), and engineering factors 

such as greater structural impacts and potential modifications to both existing roadway 

infrastructure (Harvey Canal tunnel) and flood control structures. Conceptual Alignment 

Options 2 and 3 were retained because they best met the purpose and need and were further 

evaluated and modified to become the Tier II preliminary alternatives. 

Preliminary Alternatives 

The initial transition from the retained conceptual alignment options to the preliminary 

alternatives was accomplished through re-naming only, as follows: 

 Conceptual Alignment Option 2 was renamed Preliminary Alternative A; and 

 Conceptual Alignment Option 3 was renamed Preliminary Alternative B 

The major differences between Preliminary Alternatives A and B include: 

 Potential impacts on residential areas – Preliminary Alternative B is located further east 

compared to Preliminary Alternative A and would impact more residential homes near 

Pailet Avenue between US 90B and Lapalco Boulevard, in addition to several residential 

neighborhoods located between Lapalco Boulevard and Bayou Barataria. 

 At-grade crossings – Preliminary Alternative B would result in 21 new public at-grade 

crossings compared to 5 for Preliminary Alternative A. 

 Crossing US 90B – Preliminary Alternative A would cross under US 90B within the 

existing UPRR Hooper Spur ROW, while the alignment for Preliminary Alternative B 

would result in a three-level crossing that would include an alignment over the Harvey 

Canal tunnel. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-6 

 Crossing Lapalco Boulevard – Preliminary Alternative A would cross Lapalco Boulevard 

within the existing UPRR Hooper Spur ROW, while Preliminary Alternative B would 

require an extensive embankment/bridge structure approximately 6,500 feet in length 

to span Lapalco Boulevard and the proposed Jefferson Parish West Bank Animal Shelter 

property. 

Alternative B was eliminated because it had a greater number of residential impacts, greater 

number of at-grade crossings, and engineering factors, such as higher structural complexity and 

cost. Since Alternative B was eliminated, only Alternative A was carried forward. As part of the 

continuous Alternatives Analysis process, Preliminary Alternative A was further refined and new 

alignment options were introduced within specific segments of the corridor. These 

modifications were based on additional data and analysis, as well as stakeholder and PMC 

input. At the end of the Alternatives Analysis process, the PMC reached consensus on alignment 

modifications to Preliminary Alterantive A to comprise the Preferred Alternative for evaluation 

in the EA. The No-Build Alternative was also evaluated as part of the EA. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not construct any improvements to either existing rail facilities 

or the existing roadway network beyond any projects that are currently planned or 

programmed by their respective owners including the Louisiana Department of Transportation 

and Development (LADOTD), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), NOGC, and Study Area parishes 

(Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes). The existing alignment utilized by the NOGC would 

remain in its current location, without any rail improvements. The existing Gouldsboro Yard in 

Gretna and the existing NOGC Maintenance Yard in Belle Chasse would also remain. Although 

the No-Build Alternative does not satisfy the Project’s purpose and need, because it maintains 

the status quo and fails to remedy the Study Area problems associated with safety, congestion, 

emergency access, quality of life, and rail operational inefficiencies, it is required to be brought 

forward for further analysis and evaluation under NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1502.14(d) and 1508.25(b)). 

The No-Build Alternative, as required by NEPA, serves as the basis for comparison of the 

environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative was identified as part of the refinement of the preliminary 

alternatives and has been evaluated within this EA along with the No-Build Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative alignment is shown in orange in Figure ES-2. The Preferred Alternative 

extends from 4th Street (LA 18) to LA 23 for approximately 9.3 miles. From north to south, the 

Preferred Alternative generally follows a southeastern route along and parallel to existing 

Peters Road and the proposed Peters Road extension. After crossing the GIWW, the route 

curves around the southern end of the NAS JRB and then crosses LA 23 to meet up with the 

existing NOGC track. Connection to the Belle Chasse Subdivision would occur on the east side of 

LA 23 with a wye2 connection. Benefits associated with the Preferred Alternative include 

 

2 Railway tracks arranged in the form of a “Y” that are used for turning locomotives and rail cars in the opposite direction.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-7 

potentially eliminating 97 at-grade crossings on the existing NOGC route and reducing the 

number of public at-grade crossings from 73 to 6. 

Figure ES-2. Preferred Alignment Map 

The Preferred Alternative alignment would require the realignment and reconstruction of 

Peters Road between Lapalco Boulevard and Murphy Canal (shown in green in Figure ES-2). A 

6,000-foot (1.14-mile) segment of Peters Road would be reconstructed from Lapalco Boulevard 

to the south side of the proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension, a separate project that is not 

part of the Preferred Alternative. A shorter segment of Peters Road would be constructed on 

new alignment. The limits of new construction extend from just south of the proposed Harvey 

Boulevard Extension to just south of the Murphy Canal crossing; a distance of approximately 

2,700 or 0.51 miles. The total length of the Peters Road reconstruction is estimated at 1.65 

miles. Reconstruction of Peters Road as part of the Preferred Alternative for this Project should 

not be confused with the Peters Road Extension Project, which is a separate project. For that 

project, plans are underway to extend Peters Road into Plaquemines Parish via a bridge over 

the GIWW. On its southern end, the Preferred Alternative parallels the Peters Road Extension 

project. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-8 

Estimate of Probable Cost 

The estimate of probable cost is approximately $267 million for the entire Preferred 

Alternative, which includes $260 million for the rail portion and $7 million for the 

reconstruction of Peters Road. 

Summary of Impacts 

As summarized in Table ES-1, the primary impacts of the No-Build Alternative would include 

safety and mobility impacts and impacts to community facilities along 4th Street in Gretna and 

Belle Chasse Highway, while the primary impacts of the Preferred Alternative would include 

noise impacts, impacts to cultural resources, wetlands impacts, and residential and 

business/industrial relocations. 

Table ES-1. Summary of No-Build Alternative vs. Build Alternative Impacts 

Evaluation Criteria Units No-Build Alternative Build Alternative/

Preferred Alternative

Physical Environment Considerations

Route Length Miles 16 miles 9.3 miles (4th Street to LA 23 only)

Right-of-Way Acquisition Acres 0 acres 118 acres

New Bridge Crossings Number 0

4 located at Murphy Canal, Bayou 

Barataria/GIWW, Buccaneer Road, and Bayou 

Barriere

Water Wells Impacted Number 0 4

Oil and Gas Wells Impacted Number 0 1

Natural Gas Pipeline Crossing Number 0 1

Human Environment Considerations

Future (2040) Train Volumes in 

the Study Area Description

Average 5 to 6 trains per day on the 

Westwego Subdivision and 3 trains 

per day on the Belle Chasse 

Subdivision

Up to 13 trains per day in the

Relocation Corridor; year 2040 projection

Navigation Impacts Description Existing vertical lift bridge 

on the GIWW

New swing span bridge on the GIWW (new 

crossing location)

Flood Control Project Impacts Description No Impacts

Impacts to the Boomtown Floodwall and 

Mississippi River levee avoided because the 

relocated rail ROW >15 feet from the 

floodwall/levees

Public Health and Safety Description

High number of highway-rail public 

at-grade crossings 

(73 total)

Number of new highway-rail public at-grade 

crossings reduced significantly (6 total); traffic 

control devices proposed to improve visibility 

and safety at new crossings

Highway-Rail Public 

At-grade Crossings Number 73 6 new; 2 relocated

At-grade Private Crossings Number 46 90

Total At-grade Crossings Number 119 98 along Preferred Alt alignment; 97 

eliminated along existing alignment

Reduction in Study Area Wide 

Driver Delay Costs Yes/No No Yes

Parking and Access Description Businesses on Peters Road continue 

to park in Hooper Spur ROW

Hooper Spur ROW parking would no longer 

be available
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-9 

Evaluation Criteria Units No-Build Alternative Build Alternative/

Preferred Alternative

Residential Relocations Number 0 2

Business/Industrial Relocations Number 0 10

Air Quality Impacts Description

Emissions from traffic slowdowns 

and idling through congested 

business and residential areas

Reduced traffic delay and idling would 

decrease criteria pollutant motor vehicle 

related emissions

Noise Impacts 

(without noise walls)

Description Existing noise levels would remain Noise impacts on north, center, and southern 

segments of alignment

Number of 

Residential 

Units 

Impacted

Not quantified 107 (Moderate Noise Impacts) 

0 (Severe Noise Impacts)

Vibration Impacts Yes/No No No

Land Use and Zoning Description No Impacts Consistent with existing land use 

and zoning 

Disproportionate Environmental 

Justice Impacts Yes/No No No

Recreational Resource Impacts: 

4(f) and 6(f) Properties Number None impacted One 4(f) property; No 6(f) properties

Community Facility Impacts Description

Numerous facilities along 4th Street 

in Gretna and Belle Chasse Highway 

impacted by existing trains

Fewer community facilities are located along 

the more industrial Relocation Corridor

Cultural Resources Impacts Description No Impacts Adverse effect on the Hero Park/River Oaks 

Academy site

Visual Resources Description

Undeveloped, wooded area south of 

NAS JRB expected to become 

developed as the result of the 

proposed Peters Road Extension 

project

Rail relocation would not significantly change 

the aesthetics of the industrial Relocation 

Corridor

Natural Environment Considerations

Within the 100-Year Floodplain Yes/No Yes Yes

Within the Coastal Zone Yes/No Yes Yes

Coastal Zone Impacts Description No Impacts Compensatory mitigation would offset 

wetland impacts 

Wetlands Directly Impacted Acres 0 acres 53.2 acres

Prime Farmland Impacts Yes/No No No

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Impacts Description No Impacts

Undeveloped, wooded habitat near open 

water may contain suitable habitat for some 

species, but no direct or indirect impacts to 

Federal or state listed T/E species are 

expected to occur

Energy Resources Description

Higher fuel consumption due to 6-

mile longer route, traffic delays in 

Gretna, numerous at-grade public 

road crossings, and Gouldsboro Yard 

switching operations 

Lower fuel consumption due to 6-mile 

shorter, more efficient route with fewer atgrade public road crossings

Water Quality Impacts Description No Impacts No Impacts

Water Bodies and Waterways Description No Impacts Includes bridge crossings to avoid impacts to 

waterways

Contaminated Sites Description

No improvements to existing 

environmental conditions would 

occur

Recognized environmental conditions 

(primarily contaminated soil) would be 

addressed and remediated
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-10

Coordination and Permits Required 

The future project sponsor would be required to obtain all permits prior to construction. A 

permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) New Orleans District would be required 

for the Preferred Alternative under the provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (Clean Water Act) Amendments of 1972. The Section 404 permit will establish the 

conditions of mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands within the Study Area. A USACE 

Section 10 permit will also be required prior to any work in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

(GIWW) and if the Project proposes to deposit any dredged or fill material into canals or other 

waterways. The USACE Section 10/404 permit application also serves as a Joint Permit 

Application for the Coastal Use Permit (CUP) required from the Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources (LDNR) Office of Coastal Management (OCM) and the Section 401 Permit 

(Water Quality Certification) from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)’s 

Office of Environmental Services. Prior to construction, the future project sponsor will submit 

an application for a stormwater general permit for construction activities to LDEQ. 

Given the Project’s proximity to Federal levees, the Project would require a Section 408 

(alteration of USACE civil works projects) review by the USACE. The USACE Regulatory Branch 

cannot issue a Section 404/Section 10 permit until the Section 408 Request has been approved. 

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-West (SLFPA-W) also requires a levee 

permit for any construction involving major excavation within 1,500 feet of any levee within 

SLFPA-West’s jurisdiction.

The GIWW crossing would require a US Coast Guard (USCG) permit. A USCG permit would not 

be required for waterways that are not being used for navigation and have no potential for 

navigation such as Murphy Canal, Bayou Barataria, and Bayou Barriere; however, a formal 

determination of non-navigability from the USCG would be obtained for these waterways at the 

time of the permit application. 

As part of the Section 106 review, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was consulted 

and their concurrence was obtained on FRA’s effects determinations for impacts to historic 

properties. The SHPO is also a signatory to the Memorandum of Agreement that was developed 

through the Section 106 process. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requested that the communities’ 

floodplain administrators be contacted for the review and possible permit requirements for the 

Project. 

Commitments and Mitigation Measures 

If FRA funding is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future project sponsor to 

comply with the commitments and mitigation measures outlined below. These would be 

implemented during future implementation phases of the Project including permitting, design, 

construction, and post-construction phases. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-11

Visual Resources. To improve the views for the residential area in the first few blocks south of 

4th Street on St. Joseph Lane, RGPC commits to developing a neighborhood park that would be 

located just south of 4th Street to the east of the proposed curve in the rail alignment. 

Depending on cost effectiveness to be determined in the design phase, a 10-foot noise wall 

may be built to separate the neighborhood from the track, which would block views of the 

passing trains. If the noise wall is not cost effective, the park would have a decorative wall or 

landscape screening to dampen the visual and audible effect of passing trains. Jefferson Parish 

would be responsible for maintaining the park (e.g., mowing and pruning). 

Noise and Vibration. FTA/FRA guidance does not require noise mitigation for moderate noise 

impacts; however, strategies for reduction of noise impacts (e.g. noise walls, wheel truthing, 

etc.) may be implemented during final design if determined to be cost effective. 

In order to minimize the potential for impacts of construction noise on local residents, all 

construction equipment used in the construction phase of the Project will be properly muffled 

and all motor panels shut during operation. Whenever possible, the contractor will operate 

during regular daytime working hours. To minimize vibration impacts, peak particle velocities 

due to pile driving operations will be monitored with a seismograph at critical structures, 

pavements and utilities during all pile driving operations. 

Cultural Resources. FRA determined that the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site is eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and SHPO concurred with FRA’s 

determination on July 12, 2017 (Appendix F). FRA determined the Project, if constructed with 

financial assistance from FRA, will have an adverse effect on the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy 

site due to the destruction of five oak trees associated with Hero Park and a former plantation 

and demolition of one of the two River Oaks Academy buildings. Appropriate mitigation 

measures and a guiding Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix G) were developed through 

consultation among the FRA, SHPO, and the impacted property owner. Mitigation measures 

include documenting the historic property in accordance with Historic American Building Survey 

standards and installation of a historical marker. 

Wetland Mitigation. Prior to permitting and design activities, the future project sponsor would 

be required to conduct an on-site field investigation to delineate the full extent of waters of the 

United States within the Project’s right-of-way in the southern portion of the Study Area 

generally between the GIWW and the Mississippi River Levee/Highway 11 and to make a 

proposed jurisdictional determination. The USACE would make the final jurisdictional 

determination for waters of the United States and define the appropriate mitigation 

requirements for the Project. 

Plant and Wildlife Habitats. During the permitting phase, regulatory agencies would be 

consulted to determine whether monitoring and/or site specific measures to protect sensitive 

species or habitat during construction are warranted (such as protective fencing). Locations of 

any sensitive plant and wildlife species would be mapped on construction drawings. Areas 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ES-12

where vegetation would need to be temporarily removed or disturbed for construction would 

be re-vegetated as quickly as possible with native vegetation. 

Stormwater. As noted by LDEQ in its response to the Solicitation of Views (SOV), all precautions 

to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities and to protect the 

groundwater of the region must be observed. Best management practices would be 

implemented to control soil erosion. 

Contaminated Sites. If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater 

contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the Project, notification to 

LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact is required. Additionally, precautions must be taken to protect 

workers from these hazardous constituents during construction. The Project’s right-of-way 

includes a vacant wooded parcel that was once used as a lay‐down yard for a former asbestos 

pipe coating facility that included an asbestos disposal site. Asbestos contaminated soil was 

abated in 1986; however, it is likely that there is residual asbestos contaminated soil that would 

require special handling and disposal procedures. 

Air Quality. To minimize potential air quality impacts, particularly related to control of 

particulate matter, the construction contractor shall comply with all relevant Federal, state, and 

local laws and regulations. 

Traffic and Public Safety. Traffic management plans would be developed during the final design 

phase of the Project to address and minimize public safety risks and potential traffic delays. 

Temporary traffic control zones and devices would be implemented in accordance with FHWA’s 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways to adequately 

and safely accommodate all local and through traffic. Construction operations would be 

scheduled and sequenced to minimize traffic and rail delays. Prior to construction, information 

on construction schedules throughout the Study Area would be provided to local emergency 

response organizations. 

Relocations. Business/industrial and residential relocations will be addressed in accordance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 i 

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................ES-1

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... VIII

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PROJECT HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 CONNECTED ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.6 REGULATIONS............................................................................................................................................... 1-8

2.0 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OVERVIEW................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE............................................................................................................................... 2-11

2.2.1 Existing Rail Subdivisions ............................................................................................................... 2-11

2.2.2 Existing Rail Alignment Characteristics .......................................................................................... 2-12

2.2.3 Customers Served by the NOGC Railway ...................................................................................... 2-16

2.2.4 NOGC Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 2-17

2.3 RELOCATION CORRIDOR ............................................................................................................................... 2-18

2.4 CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS................................................................................................................ 2-20

2.4.1 Description of Conceptual Alignment Options .............................................................................. 2-21

2.4.2 Evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Options ............................................................................... 2-23

2.5 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 2-25

2.5.1 Preliminary Alternative A Description ........................................................................................... 2-27

2.5.2 Preliminary Alternative B Description ........................................................................................... 2-27

2.5.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2-28

2.5.4 Preliminary Alternative B Additional Analysis and Elimination ..................................................... 2-29

2.6 REFINEMENT OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE A AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 2-30

2.6.1 Curve from Double Track Mainline Along 4th Street to Peters Road ............................................ 2-32

2.6.2 Rail Alignment along the West Side of Peters Road – 4th Street to South of Lapalco Boulevard . 2-32

2.6.3 Rail Alignment along the East Side of Peters Road – 4th Street to South of Lapalco Boulevard .. 2-33

2.6.4 Rail Alignment within Undeveloped Parcels South of Lapalco Boulevard..................................... 2-33

2.6.5 Rail Alignment along Peters Road South of Lapalco Boulevard .................................................... 2-34

2.6.6 Rail Alignment along the West Side of Peters Road Parallel to Floodwall .................................... 2-34

2.6.7 Rail Alignment Crossing Murphy Canal ......................................................................................... 2-35

2.6.8 Rail Alignment within Undeveloped Parcels between Murphy Canal Crossing and GIWW .......... 2-35

2.6.9 Rail Alignment Crossing the GIWW ............................................................................................... 2-35

2.6.10 Movable Bridge Options Crossing the GIWW ................................................................................ 2-36

2.6.11 Rail Alignment Crossing LA 23 and Connection to Existing Track at LA 23 .................................... 2-37

2.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................................. 2-37

2.7.1 Rail and Roadway Typical Sections ................................................................................................ 2-38

2.7.2 Preferred Alternative Alignment ................................................................................................... 2-40

2.7.3 Right-of-Way and Relocations ....................................................................................................... 2-43

2.8 ENGINEERING COMPONENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................... 2-44
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ii

2.8.1 Rail Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 2-44

2.8.2 Bridges and Structures .................................................................................................................. 2-45

2.8.3 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................... 2-48

2.8.4 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 2-49

2.8.5 Construction Sequencing ............................................................................................................... 2-49

2.8.6 Preferred Alternative Railroad Operations ................................................................................... 2-49

2.8.7 Estimate of Probable Cost ............................................................................................................. 2-50

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................... 3-1

3.1 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.1.1 Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.2 Existing Conditions Compared to NAAQS ........................................................................................ 3-4

3.2 WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 WATER BODIES AND WATERWAYS ................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4 NAVIGATION ................................................................................................................................................ 3-8

3.5 FLOODPLAINS AND FLOOD ZONES..................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.6 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................ 3-11

3.7 COASTAL ZONES.......................................................................................................................................... 3-13

3.8 SOILS AND PRIME FARMLAND........................................................................................................................ 3-14

3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION................................................................................................................................. 3-15

3.9.1 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 3-16

3.9.2 Vibration ........................................................................................................................................ 3-21

3.10 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ................................................................ 3-27

3.11 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 3-29

3.11.1 Regional Roadway Network .......................................................................................................... 3-30

3.11.2 Rail Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 3-32

3.11.3 Local Vehicular Transportation ..................................................................................................... 3-34

3.11.4 Parking and Access ........................................................................................................................ 3-39

3.12 RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE RELOCATIONS.................................................................................... 3-40

3.13 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................................................... 3-41

3.14 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS........................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.14.1 Permitting ...................................................................................................................................... 3-45

3.15 LAND USE AND ZONING................................................................................................................................ 3-46

3.15.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 3-46

3.15.2 Zoning ............................................................................................................................................ 3-48

3.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES................................................................................................................................ 3-53

3.17 DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................................................................ 3-55

3.17.1 Census Geographies ...................................................................................................................... 3-55

3.17.2 Race and Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 3-58

3.17.3 Income and Poverty ...................................................................................................................... 3-60

3.17.4 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................... 3-63

3.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ......................................................................................................................... 3-66

3.18.1 Emergency Vehicle Response ........................................................................................................ 3-66

3.18.2 Vehicle and Pedestrian Interaction ............................................................................................... 3-67

3.19 CONTAMINATED SITES ................................................................................................................................. 3-70

3.20 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 3-75
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 iii

3.20.1 Archaeological Survey Methods .................................................................................................... 3-75

3.20.2 Architectural Survey Methods ....................................................................................................... 3-76

3.20.3 Archaeological Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 3-76

3.20.4 Architectural Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 3-77

3.20.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 3-77

3.21 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 3-79

3.22 ENERGY RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 3-82

3.23 VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 3-82

3.24 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS.............................................................................................................................. 3-84

3.24.1 Construction Impacts .................................................................................................................... 3-84

3.24.2 Traffic............................................................................................................................................. 3-84

3.24.3 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................................... 3-85

3.24.4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................ 3-85

3.24.5 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 3-86

3.24.6 Construction Waste ....................................................................................................................... 3-86

3.24.7 Utility Service ................................................................................................................................. 3-86

3.24.8 Borrow Pits and Spoil Sites ............................................................................................................ 3-86

3.25 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.......................................................................................................... 3-87

3.25.1 Secondary or Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................ 3-87

3.25.2 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-91

3.26 SUMMARY OF PERMITS, MITIGATION, AND COMMITMENTS ................................................................................ 3-98

3.26.1 Permits Not Required .................................................................................................................... 3-98

3.26.2 Required Permits ........................................................................................................................... 3-98

3.26.3 Commitments and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3-100

4.0 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 SECTION 4(F) REGULATORY CONTEXT................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2.1 Permanent Use ................................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2.2 Temporary Use ................................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2.3 Constructive Use ............................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.2.4 Section 4(f) Applicability .................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3 SECTION 6(F) OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ............................................................................. 4-3

4.4 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.5 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.5.1 No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 4-3

4.5.2 Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.5.3 Overview of Preliminary Alternatives .............................................................................................. 4-5

4.6 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES .............................................................................................................................. 4-9

4.6.1 Parks and Recreation Sites .............................................................................................................. 4-9

4.6.2 Open Space .................................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.6.3 Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges .................................................................................................... 4-11

4.6.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.7 SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 4-14

4.8 PRELIMINARY SECTION 4(F) USE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 4-14

4.8.1 Archaeological Resource Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-14
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 iv

4.8.2 Historic Resource Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4-14

4.9 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 4-15

4.10 PRELIMINARY SECTION 4(F) FINDING .............................................................................................................. 4-18

4.11 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM .................................................................................................................... 4-18

4.12 PRELIMINARY SECTION 6(F) FINDING .............................................................................................................. 4-19

4.13 AGENCY COORDINATION .............................................................................................................................. 4-19

5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION......................................................................... 5-1

5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Solicitation of Views ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.2 Agency Scoping Meeting ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.3 Agency Coordination Meetings ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.4 Project Management Committee Meetings .................................................................................... 5-3

5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.2.1 Public Meeting ................................................................................................................................. 5-6

5.2.2 Informational Meetings ................................................................................................................... 5-6

6.0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 FEDERAL LEGISLATION.................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 FAST Act Overview .......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 FAST Act Safety Provision ................................................................................................................ 6-2

6.1.3 FAST Act Rail Development Grants and Policy Provision ................................................................ 6-3

6.1.4 FAST Act Financing Program Provision ............................................................................................ 6-3

6.2 GRANTS FOR FREIGHT RAIL INVESTMENT ........................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.1 Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants ....................................................................... 6-4

6.2.2 Railroad Safety Technology for Positive Train Control (PTC) ........................................................... 6-4

6.2.3 Railroad Safety Grants for the Safe Transportation of Energy Products by Rail Program ............... 6-4

6.3 LOAN PROGRAMS FOR FREIGHT RAIL INVESTMENT............................................................................................... 6-5

6.3.1 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) ........................................................... 6-5

6.3.2 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) ................................................. 6-5

6.4 STATE PROGRAMS......................................................................................................................................... 6-6

6.4.1 Louisiana Capital Outlay Program ................................................................................................... 6-6

6.5 OTHER FUNDING AND FINANCING OPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 6-7

6.5.1 Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) .............................................................................................. 6-7

6.5.2 Public-Private Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 6-7

6.5.3 Tax-Expenditure Finance Programs ................................................................................................. 6-8

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/CONTRIBUTORS ................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 NOTIFICATION LIST ............................................................................................................................. 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 9-2

9.1 REPORTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE............................................................................................................ 9-2

9.2 OTHER REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................................................................. 9-3

9.3 GIS LAYER DATA SOURCES.............................................................................................................................. 9-5

10.0 GLOSSARY .........................................................................................................................................10-1
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. NOGC Railway Subdivision Map .............................................................................................. 1-2

Figure 1-2. Study Area Overview Map ....................................................................................................... 1-4

Figure 2-1. Tiered Alternatives Analysis Process ....................................................................................... 2-9

Figure 2-2. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 2-10

Figure 2-3. Public Involvement Throughout the Alternatives Analysis .................................................... 2-10

Figure 2-4. Existing Highway Rail At-Grade Crossings within Study Area ................................................ 2-13

Figure 2-5. Photographs of Typical Conditions along the Existing Rail Alignment .................................. 2-15

Figure 2-6. Existing NOGC Customers ...................................................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-7. Relocation Corridor ................................................................................................................ 2-18

Figure 2-8. Photographs of Existing Conditions within the Relocation Corridor ..................................... 2-19

Figure 2-9. Conceptual Alignment Options .............................................................................................. 2-21

Figure 2-10. Preliminary Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2-26

Figure 2-11. Rail Alignment Refinement Locations .................................................................................. 2-31

Figure 2-12. Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................... 2-37

Figure 2-13. Proposed Typical Section: Along Peters Road – Gold Street to Lapalco Boulevard ............ 2-38

Figure 2-14. Proposed Typical Section: Along Peters Road – Lapalco Boulevard .................................... 2-39

Figure 2-15. Proposed Typical Section: Along NOGC Siding .................................................................... 2-39

Figure 2-16. GIWW Movable Bridge Swing Span Option ......................................................................... 2-47

Figure 3-1. Flood Zones Map ................................................................................................................... 3-10

Figure 3-2. USFWS NWI Map ................................................................................................................... 3-12

Figure 3-3. Typical Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 3-17

Figure 3-4. Example Vibration Velocity Levels ......................................................................................... 3-22

Figure 3-5. Existing At-Grade Railroad Crossings in the Study Area ........................................................ 3-36

Figure 3-6. Photograph of Parking within Abandoned Hooper Spur ....................................................... 3-40

Figure 3-7. Major Components of the West Bank and Vicinity Project ................................................... 3-43

Figure 3-8. Future Study Area Generalized Land Use .............................................................................. 3-49

Figure 3-9. Existing Study Area Generalized Zoning ................................................................................ 3-52

Figure 3-10. Community Facilities Map ................................................................................................... 3-54

Figure 3-11. Population Density Map ...................................................................................................... 3-56

Figure 3-12. Census Geography Map ....................................................................................................... 3-57

Figure 3-13. Minority Population Map .................................................................................................... 3-59

Figure 3-14. Median Income by Census Tract Map ................................................................................. 3-61

Figure 3-15. Percentage Poverty by Census Tract Map ........................................................................... 3-62

Figure 3-16. Road-Rail Crossing Signage and On-street Markings Example ............................................ 3-70

Figure 3-17. Location of REC Sites ............................................................................................................ 3-74

Figure 3-18. Location of Parks and Recreational Resources .................................................................... 3-81

Figure 3-19. View of Hooper Spur Track on Peters Road (view facing south) ......................................... 3-83

Figure 4-1. Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................... 4-5

Figure 4-2. Conceptual Alignment Options ................................................................................................ 4-6
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 vi

Figure 4-3. Preliminary Alternatives A and B (North and South) ............................................................... 4-7

Figure 4-4. Location of Parks and Recreational Resources ...................................................................... 4-10

Figure 4-5. Plan View of Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site ................................................................. 4-12

Figure 4-6. Former River Oaks Academy Building (now Southern Arch) ................................................. 4-12

Figure 4-7. Large Piles of Lumber on Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site ............................................. 4-13

Figure 4-8. Several Large Historic Live Oaks on Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site ............................. 4-13

Figure 4-9. Refinement Locations Preferred Alternative ......................................................................... 4-16

Figure 4-10. Rail Alignment Crossing LA 23 through the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site ............... 4-17

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Study Area Future Roadway Improvements ............................................................................. 1-7

Table 2-1. Existing NOGC Rail Alignment Characteristics within Study Area ........................................... 2-14

Table 2-2. Summary of Conceptual Alignment Option Impacts .............................................................. 2-24

Table 2-3. Summary of Preliminary Alternative Impacts ......................................................................... 2-29

Table 2-4. Summary of Rail Alignment Refinements ............................................................................... 2-30

Table 2-5. Estimated Right-of-way ........................................................................................................... 2-44

Table 2-6. Preferred Alternative Track Length ......................................................................................... 2-44

Table 3-1. Summary of No-Build Alternative vs. Build Alternative Impacts .............................................. 3-1

Table 3-2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Existing Conditions ............................................ 3-5

Table 3-3. Potential Wetland Impacts by Type ........................................................................................ 3-11

Table 3-4. Preferred Alternative Right-of-Way Soils ................................................................................ 3-14

Table 3-5. Existing Day-Night Noise Levels (Ldn) ..................................................................................... 3-19

Table 3-6. General Noise Assessment ...................................................................................................... 3-20

Table 3-7. Noise Impact Summary ........................................................................................................... 3-21

Table 3-8. FTA Vibration Screening Distances ......................................................................................... 3-23

Table 3-9. General Vibration Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 3-25

Table 3-10. Vibration Levels Due to Special Trackwork ........................................................................... 3-26

Table 3-11. Threatened and Endangered Species in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes ..................... 3-28

Table 3-12. Comparison of Train Traffic (Existing vs. 2040 NOGC Forecasts) .......................................... 3-33

Table 3-13. Future Highway Rail At-Grade Crossings along Existing NOGC Rail Corridor ....................... 3-37

Table 3-14. Future Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings along the Preferred Alternative ........................... 3-38

Table 3-15. Location and Number of Estimated Industrial and Residential Relocations ........................ 3-41

Table 3-16. Future Study Area Generalized Land Use (2020-2030)......................................................... 3-47

Table 3-17. Existing Study Area Generalized Zoning ............................................................................... 3-50

Table 3-18. Relocation Corridor Generalized Zoning ............................................................................... 3-50

Table 3-19. Community Facilities ............................................................................................................. 3-53

Table 3-20. Census Geographies .............................................................................................................. 3-55

Table 3-21. Study Area Demographics Compared to Local Parishes and Louisiana ................................ 3-58

Table 3-22. Study Area Income and Poverty............................................................................................ 3-60

Table 3-23. Comparison Census Geographies ......................................................................................... 3-65

Table 3-24. Environmental Justice Considerations by Relocation Corridor Census Tracts ...................... 3-65
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 vii 

Table 3-25. Road-Rail Crossing Signage ................................................................................................... 3-69

Table 3-26. Parks and Recreational Resources ........................................................................................ 3-79

Table 3-27. Summary of Direct and Secondary Impacts – Build Alternative ........................................... 3-87

Table 3-28. Summary of Past, Present and Future Actions ..................................................................... 3-93

Table 4-1. Parks and Recreational Resources ............................................................................................ 4-9

Table 4-2. Summary of Rail Alignment Refinements Preferred Alterantive ............................................ 4-15

Table 4-3. Summary of Agency Coordination .......................................................................................... 4-19

Table 5-1. Summary of Agency Meetings .................................................................................................. 5-2

Table 5-2. Summary of Project Management Committee Meetings ......................................................... 5-4

Table 5-3. Summary of Project Management Committee Technical Meetings ......................................... 5-5

Table 5-4. Summary of Stakeholder and Public Meetings ......................................................................... 5-7

Appendices 

Appendix A Alternatives Analysis Alignment Maps 

Appendix B Preferred Alternative Conceptual Plans 

Appendix C Right-of-Way and Relocation Map Set 

Appendix D Preferred Alternative Estimate of Probable Cost 

Appendix E Noise Models 

Appendix F Additional Agency Coordination (USFWS, NMFS, and SHPO) 

Appendix G Draft Memorandum of Agreement between FRA and SHPO 

Project Reports Incorporated by Reference 

Refer to Section 8.1 for complete citations. These reports are available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html

or from RPC upon request. 

Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan, May 2015 

Purpose and Need, August 2015 

Agency Scoping Meeting Memorandum, September 2015 

Public Meeting Summary, November 2015 

Public and Agency Outreach Summary Memorandum, May 2016 

Tier I Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation, August 2015 

Tier II Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation, June 2016

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) Marine Vessel Traffic Analysis, August 2015 

Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions, July 2015 

Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build Conditions (2040), December 2015 

Traffic Analysis Report – Build Conditions (2040), December 2015 

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and NRHP Research, June 2017 (Not for Public Review) 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, May 2016 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 viii 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronym/

Abbreviation Definition

AAI All Appropriate Inquiry

ACS (US Census) American Community Survey 

ADT Average Daily Traffic

APE Area of Potential Effects

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CREATE Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (Program)

CUP Coastal Use Permit 

dB/dBA decibels/A-weighted decibels (noise levels)

DHH (Louisiana) Department of Health and Hospitals

EA environmental assessment

EB Eastbound

EFH Essential fish habitat

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency 

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations

FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (Act)

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GBN Ground-borne noise

GBV Ground-borne vibration 

GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

HABS Historic American Building Survey

HCIA Harvey Canal Industrial Association (recently renamed Westbank Business and 

Industry Association)

HCT Harvey Canal Tunnel 

HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.

HSDRRS Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System

HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development

IMTT International Matex Tank Terminal 

IRAP Industrial Rail Access Program 

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

LA 18 Louisiana Highway 18 (4th Street)

LA 1241 Louisiana Highway 1241 (Peters Road Extension)

LA 23 Louisiana Highway 23 (Belle Chasse Highway)

LA 406 Louisiana Highway 406 (Woodland Highway)
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 ix

Acronym/

Abbreviation Definition

LA 428 Louisiana Highway 428 (Behrman Highway)

LA 466 Louisiana Highway 466 (Kepler Street)

LA 3017 Louisiana Highway 3017 (Peters Road/Engineers Road)

LA 3018 Louisiana Highway 3018 (Destrehan Avenue)

LADOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

LCRP Louisiana Coastal Resources Program

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

LOS level of service

LPDES Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

LRFA Local Rail Freight Assistance (program)

LRSA Local Rail Service Assistance Act

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Funds

ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MP Mile Post

mph miles per hour

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAS JRB Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans

NB Northbound

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx/NO/NO2 nitrogen oxides/nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxide

NOGC New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company

NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OCM Office of Coastal Management 

OCPR (Louisiana) Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration

O3 ozone

PI-ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

PE Preliminary Engineering

ppb parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

PM10/PM2.5 particulate matter (smaller than 10 microns in diameter/2.5 microns in diameter)

PMC Project Management Committee

PPG Plaquemines Parish Government

PPP public-private partnerships

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

RGPC Rio Grande Pacific Corporation 

rms root-mean-square
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 x 

Acronym/

Abbreviation Definition

RPC Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, 

St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes

RSIA Railroad Safety Improvement Act 

ROW right-of-way

RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing

SB Southbound

SELA Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Program 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIB State Infrastructure Banks

SLFPA-W Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-West 

SO2/SO3 sulfur dioxide/sulfur trioxide

SOV Solicitation of Views

STP Surface Transportation Program

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

US 90B US Highway 90 Business Route (Westbank Expressway)

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. US Code

USCG US Coast Guard 

USDA US Department of Agriculture

USDOT US Department of Transportation

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS US Geological Survey

VdB vibration decibels 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WB Westbound

WBV West Bank and Vicinity (project)
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-1 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 Introduction 

The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, 

St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes (RPC) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

entered into a grant agreement in 2015 to conduct an environmental review and prepare an 

environmental document for the relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway 

that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast 

Louisiana (Project). The FRA is the lead Federal agency for the oversight of the environmental 

process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Class of Action is an environmental 

assessment (EA), which leads to a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) if there are no 

significant impacts associated with the proposed rail relocation project (Project). The Project 

identified a preferred alternative from a range of potential build alternatives that were 

developed and evaluated as part of the EA. The No-Build Alternative was also evaluated. This 

EA was conducted in conformance with the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) and 49 CFR Part 260.35. 

Currently, there is no funding or project sponsor identified for construction of the Project. If 

FRA funding is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future project sponsor to 

comply with the commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this document. 

1.2 Project History 

The NOGC Railway is a 32-mile long shortline railroad that operates on the “Westbank” of New 

Orleans, Louisiana serving Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes. Figure 1-1 is a map of the NOGC 

Railway and the limits of its Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. The NOGC currently 

interchanges with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Westwego, Louisiana (1.5 miles east of 

Avondale Yard). Interchange between the UPRR and NOGC is handled through a Handling 

Carrier Arrangement (Interchange Agreement). The NOGC currently serves over 20 switching 

and industrial customers and is the only railroad operating on the Westbank of New Orleans. 

The UPRR and NOGC alignment is located through a series of residential, commercial and 

industrial areas. There are approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at- grade 

crossings along its entire length within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. 

Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade crossings are located in the Study Area (Figure 1-2). 

In 2002, the Plaquemines Parish Intermodal Feasibility Study (DMJM Harris 2002) was 

completed for the RPC to examine the feasibility of rail alternatives from West Bridge Junction 

near Avondale Yard to prospective Millennium Port sites located in lower Plaquemines Parish 

near Myrtle Grove. The Harvey Canal corridor was one of the alternative routes examined 

within that study. In 2011, the Rio Grande Pacific Corporation (RGPC) retained HDR Engineering, 

Inc. (HDR) to develop a Conceptual Engineering Report (HDR 2011a) and Preliminary 

Environmental Report (HDR 2011b) for the relocation of a substantial portion of the NOGC 

Railway. In 2012, HDR assisted in the preparation of a Transportation Investment Generating 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-2 

Economic Recovery IV (TIGER) Grant Application for the Project, which included the 2011 

Conceptual Engineering and Preliminary Environmental Reports (USDOT 2012). The Project is 

included in the 2012 Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Master Plan (PPG 2012). 

Figure 1-1. NOGC Railway Subdivision Map
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-3 

1.3 Study Area 

The “Study Area” for the Project encompasses portions of the City of Gretna, unincorporated 

Jefferson Parish including Harvey and Terrytown, and Plaquemines Parish. The boundaries of 

the Study Area are the Harvey Canal on the west, the Mississippi River on the north, the 

Jefferson/Orleans Parish line on the east, and Walker Road on the south as shown in Figure 1-2. 

The portion of the NOGC Railway that is subject to analysis within this EA extends from the 

west side of the Harvey Canal, in Harvey to near the intersection of Louisiana Highway 23 (LA 

23)/Belle Chasse Highway and Walker Road in Belle Chasse; a distance of approximately 16 

miles. 

On the western limit of the Study Area near the Harvey Canal, the NOGC rail corridor parallels 

LA 18 (4th Street) on the north side and then merges into 4th Street in downtown Gretna. The 

tracks are located within the center of 4th Street between Dolhonde Street and Amelia Street 

for approximately 0.46 miles. The NOGC Railway also runs within Madison Street between 

Americus Street and Stumpf Boulevard for approximately 0.73 miles. Within these limits, the 

adjacent land use consists of densely developed residences, businesses, schools and churches. 

The City of Gretna and Jefferson Parish West Bank government offices are located within 

downtown Gretna. 

Beginning south of US Highway 90 Business (US 90B)/(Westbank Expressway) and extending to 

Walker Road in Belle Chasse, the NOGC Railway parallels LA 23 for the majority of its length. 

However, a short segment of the rail corridor diverges from the LA 23 right-of-way and runs 

parallel to the Mississippi River Levee/Highway 11 then re-emerges back into the LA 23 corridor 

near Russell Drive. Russell Drive is the main entrance to the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base 

(NAS JRB) New Orleans, a Navy airport is located in the southern portion of the Study Area. 

Land use adjacent to LA 23 is developed similarly to land use patterns along key roadways 

within Gretna, i.e., densely developed residences, businesses, schools and churches. Within 

Jefferson Parish, the railway crosses several principal arterials, including the US 90B frontage 

roads, Terry Parkway, and Behrman Highway (LA 428). The railway also crosses two major 

water bodies on moveable bridges: the Harvey Canal near 4th Street in Harvey and the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in Belle Chasse. 

The Study Area is protected by levees and flood protection walls and the southern portion is 

located within the 100-year floodplain. Land use is primarily industrial, commercial, and 

residential and also includes undeveloped areas. In addition to the GIWW, the Study Area 

contains numerous waterways and wetlands and lies within the Mississippi River deltaic plain 

and the Louisiana Coastal Zone. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-4 

Figure 1-2. Study Area Overview Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-5 

1.4 Purpose and Need 

Project Purpose. Vehicular and train traffic is projected to increase within the Study Area due 

to normal growth in population and NOGC-projected increases in level of industry.3 Highwayrail traffic conflicts have an adverse impact on the Westbank community including both 

residential and employment populations (see photo of a rail-vehicle incident in Gretna below). 

These impacts include safety, congestion, mobility, and quality of life issues. The purpose of the 

Project is to improve safety and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in 

densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish. 

Project Need. The Project is needed due 

to current and future congestion, safety, 

capacity, and livability issues in the 

region. The NOGC Railway relocation will 

improve the existing transportation 

network by creating much needed 

improvements along the existing rail 

corridor. The Project provides numerous 

safety benefits as well. The need for the 

Project includes: 

 Improve Safety 

 Potentially eliminate the majority of the existing 120 highway-rail at-grade rail 

crossings (public and private) along the existing NOGC rail corridor within the 

segment that spans between the Harvey Canal and Walker Road. Most of the 

private at-grade crossings along the existing route have no active warning 

system and rely on passive crossbucks signage, train horn noise, and driver 

awareness. 

 Reduce potential public exposure to hazardous materials within residential and 

commercial areas. 

 Relieve Congestion 

 Minimize congestion and delay especially along 4th Street in downtown Gretna, 

where in-street running of trains between Dolhonde Street and Amelia Street 

(approximately 0.46 miles) can block side street traffic from 12 minutes to 20 minutes, 

depending on the overall length of the train sets. 

 The in-street segment on Madison Street extends from Americus Street to Stumpf 

Boulevard (approximately 0.73 miles). Regular trains average about 25 cars in both 

directions and it takes about 13 minutes to clear this segment of roadway. 

 The process of train assembly and movement within in-street corridors results in 

blockage at numerous intersections and motorist delay documented by significant 

 

3

 Vehicular traffic projections based on LADOTD Historic Traffic Count Data and RPC Travel Demand Model 2040 and 2044 

Network. Refer to the Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions, July 2015 and Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build Conditions 

(2040), December 2015 (available from the RPC upon request). Train traffic projections based on NOGC railway estimates. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-6 

congestion and level of service F4 operations. This operating condition is a result of 

the train’s reduced speed combined with the longer length of time required for 

operations to clear. 

 Improve Emergency Access and Evacuation

 Improve emergency and hurricane evacuation along LA 23, which is a designated 

hurricane evacuation route. 

 Improve public safety access for fire, police, and ambulance response. Current 

railroad freight traffic along the existing rail corridor has a devastating effect on

LA 18 and LA 23 by blocking access to adjacent roads, as well as access to public 

roadways and private businesses. Delay to emergency vehicles is a concern when 

trains as long as 1.3 miles could potentially block primary emergency response 

access along LA 18 and LA 23 or along routes that cross LA 18 and LA 23. 

 Enhance Quality of Life 

 Improve mobility for Westbank area motorists. 

 Eliminate train noise in densely developed residential and commercial areas.

 Improve Efficiency of Rail Operations 

 The average operating speed for NOGC trains along the existing rail alignment 

averages 10 miles per hour (mph), with actual speeds ranging from 2 mph to 4 mph 

within Gretna. Relocation of the NOGC Railway to an alternate location where 

development is not as dense would improve the efficiency of NOGC’s freight rail 

operations, with operating speeds of 10 to 20 mph projected. 

1.5 Connected Actions 

Foreseeable future conditions for this EA assume a certain number of improvements made to 

the regional roadway network as a result of implementation of the regional near-term 

Transportation Improvement Program, New Orleans Urbanized Area, for Fiscal Years 2015-2018

(RPC 2014) and the long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan, New Orleans Urbanized Area, 

for Fiscal Years 2015-2044 (RPC 2015). These projects address overall mobility needs in the 

multi-parish region through a combination of additional lane capacity on existing roads or 

better connections between individual roads through a combination of roadway construction, 

intersection improvements or upgrades to interchanges. 

Within the Study Area, the future roadway network includes several connectors which improve 

mobility options for north-south traffic, as well as traffic traveling within the City of Gretna. The 

Transportation Improvement Program and Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes 

approximately $370 million in transportation improvements within the Study Area as shown in 

Table 1-1 (generally listed from north to south).

 

4

See Glossary for definition of Level of Service.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-7 

Table 1-1. Study Area Future Roadway Improvements 

Project 

No. Roadway Description Project Cost

H.001413 LA 18/4th Street

New 2-lane roadway extension 

from Richard St to Burmaster

Street/Franklin Avenue in Gretna

$6.7M 1

N/A US 90B at MacArthur Drive Phase 2 interchange completion; 

ramp improvements $40.1M

N/A Lapalco Bridge at Harvey Canal Widen to 6 lanes $55M

H.007208 Harvey Boulevard (Manhattan 

Boulevard to Peters Road)

New roadway extension $18.5M

H.007223 Harvey Boulevard (Manhattan 

to Wall Blvd) Widen to 4 lanes with median $7.8M

H.008068 Peters Road Bridge and 

Extension: Phase 2

New 2-lane roadway from 

Boomtown Casino to Walker Road $26.3M

H.008069 Peters Road Bridge and 

Extension: Phase 3 New bridge at the GIWW $66M

H.006441 LA 23 (Lapalco Boulevard to 

Engineers Road) Widening $6.9M

H.004791 LA 23 (Belle Chasse Tunnel)

Replace Belle Chasse Bridge and 

Tunnel to upgrade to 4 lanes $143M

Total ~$370M

1

 Project cost from the in Metropolitan Transportation Plan; cost in the Transportation Improvement Program is $8.9M. 

The following paragraphs further describe some of the major improvements listed in Table 1-1. 

Another connected action described below, which is not listed in the table, is the on-going Port 

of New Orleans Master Plan which will determine the disposition of the Perry Street Wharf. 

LA 18/4th Street Extension. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes a Tier I project that 

consists of extending LA 18 approximately 1 mile from Richard Street to Burmaster Street. The 

LA18/4th Street Extension would create one additional public at-grade crossing of the NOGC 

Railway in the Belle Chasse Subdivision. 

Peters Road Improvements and Extension. Plans are underway to extend Peters Road into 

Plaquemines Parish via a bridge over the GIWW. On its southern end, the proposed rail 

alignment parallels the Peters Road Extension project. 

Harvey Boulevard Extension. Harvey Boulevard is planned to be extended in both east and 

west directions. To the west, Harvey Boulevard would be widened and extended from its 

current western terminus at Manhattan Boulevard to the Murphy Canal, and eventually would 

be extended across Harvey Canal to Peters Road (USDOT/LADOTD/RPC 2008). 

LA 23 Improvements. The Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Master Plan, Community 

Assessment -Technical Addendum (PPG 2012) includes several key projects to widen and 

increase the capacity of LA 23. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 1-8 

Perry Street Wharf. Although it is not currently being served by the NOGC Railway, the Perry 

Street Wharf was once served by the NOGC. The Port of New Orleans is currently conducting a 

Master Plan study to determine the highest and best use for the Perry Street Wharf. An 

uncertainty in the future condition is whether the Perry Street Wharf would require future rail 

service or not. It is therefore also uncertain whether the existing track along 4th Street in 

Gretna would remain or be removed as a separate action subsequent to the proposed rail 

relocation. 

1.6 Regulations 

The following statutes and orders were considered during the preparation of this EA: 

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. 

 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Part 1500 

 Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a), August 2011 (Final DOT Environmental 

Justice Order) 

 Federal Railroad Administrative Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 

64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) and 49 CFR Part 260.35 

 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1451 

 Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq., 50 CFR Part 17

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq., 

50 CFR Part 600

 Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. 

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program, 40 CFR Part 122 

 Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1424 (sole source aquifer program) 

 Farmland Protection Policy Act, Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549 

 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

 Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §491 and 33 U.S.C. 

§403 

 Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and codified in 33 U.S.C. §408 (“Section 

408”)

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

§470 et seq. 

 Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. §303 

 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, CFR Title 36, Chapter 1, Part 59 

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income Populations, February 11, 1994 

 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977 

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977 

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §61 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-9 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. requires that all 

of the reasonable alternatives that could achieve the purpose and need for the Project be 

considered. This chapter describes the alternatives development process, defined as a tiered 

Alternatives Analysis; which consisted of the development and evaluation of alternatives at 

different stages throughout the Project’s duration. The No-Build Alternative, including key 

features such as rail operating conditions and existing highway-rail at-grade locations are 

presented herein. 

The proposed rail relocation alternatives consist of a new rail line for NOGC operations east of 

its current location. The rail relocation alternatives and associated improvements were 

developed with a primary goal to minimize and/or eliminate traffic conflicts at existing 

highway-rail at-grade locations. The alternatives would result in operational improvements 

allowing rail traffic to operate at acceptable speeds throughout the Relocation Corridor 

(described in Section 2.3), and would improve safety along the existing NOGC rail alignment. 

Each alternative was evaluated based on its ability to satisfy the Project’s purpose and need. 

2.1 Alternative Analysis Overview 

A tiered approach was utilized to develop and evaluate the build alternatives for the proposed 

relocation of the NOGC Railway. Each step of the engineering and environmental screening 

evaluation process, known as an Alternatives Analysis, included a progressively more rigorous 

evaluation of the alternatives in terms of design features, potential environmental impacts, 

estimated costs, and benefits. The purpose of the 

tiered Alternatives Analysis process was to identify, 

evaluate and refine the alternatives in order to 

recommend and select a preferred alternative (see 

Figure 2-1).

As part of the tiered Alternatives Analysis process, 

alternatives were evaluated during various stages of 

development that consisted of the following stages: 

 Tier I – conceptual alignment options 

 Tier II – preliminary alternatives

 Tier II – refinement of preliminary alternatives 

 Selection of the Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative was identified as part of the 

refinement of the preliminary alternatives and has 

been evaluated within this EA. 

Figure 2-1. Tiered Alternatives Analysis 

Process
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-10

The following steps were undertaken as part of the tiered alternatives development process: 

1. Review of prior studies and potential alignment options. 

2. Development of conceptual alignment options. 

3. Screening of conceptual alignment options that led to the identification of two 

preliminary alternatives. 

4. Development of preliminary alternatives. 

5. Public review and comment on the conceptual alignment options and screening, and 

preliminary alternatives. This was accomplished as part of the September 22, 2015 

Public Meeting. 

6. Refinement of the preliminary alternatives based on public comments. 

7. Identification and evaluation of the Preferred Alternative and its associated features. 

8. Refinement of the Preferred Alternative. 

9. Selection of the Preferred Alternative that is the subject of this EA. 

Purpose and Need. The Alternatives Analysis process 

was guided by an alternatives ability to meet the 

Project’s purpose and need (see Figure 2-2). In addition 

to aspects of the purpose and need, the alternatives 

were evaluated in their ability to meet the following 

objectives: 

 Adequately serve commercial freight rail needs 

including existing industries. 

 Minimize and reduce traffic conflicts associated 

with at-grade intersections.

 Provide benefits to the community or 

the environment. 

Public Involvement. The Alternatives Analysis 

involved the interaction of several government 

agencies, officials, stakeholders, the PMC, and 

the public in order to compare and contrast 

the alternatives. These entities assisted in the 

development of project alternatives, identified 

additional alternatives, and provided guidance 

in the evaluation of alternatives. Figure 2-3

lists the public involvement activities that 

helped to guide the Alternatives Analysis. 

Figure 2-2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2-3. Public Involvement Throughout the 

Alternatives Analysis
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-11

2.2 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not construct any improvements to either existing rail facilities 

or the existing roadway network beyond any projects that are currently planned or 

programmed by their respective owners including the Louisiana Department of Transportation 

and Development (LADOTD), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), NOGC, and Study Area parishes 

(Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes). The existing alignment utilized by the NOGC would 

remain in its current location, without any rail improvements. The existing Gouldsboro Yard in 

Gretna and the existing NOGC Maintenance Yard in Belle Chasse would also remain. The NoBuild Alternative does not satisfy the Project’s purpose and need, but is required to be brought 

forward for further analysis and evaluation under NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1502.14(d) and 1508.25(b)). 

The No-Build Alternative, as required by NEPA, serves as the basis for comparison of the 

environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Existing conditions and 

characteristics associated with the No-Build Alternative are described below.

2.2.1 Existing Rail Subdivisions 

Characteristics associated with the existing rail subdivisions, as previously shown in Figure 1-1,

and the existing rail alignment would remain as-is under the No-Build Alternative. The existing 

rail subdivisions are summarized below. 

Westwego Subdivision. The NOGC Railway currently interchanges with the UPRR in Westwego, 

Louisiana. The limits of the Westwego Subdivision extend from the Westwego Yard [Milepost 

(MP) 8.3], east through the cities and/or unincorporated jurisdictions of Westwego, Marrero, 

Harvey and Gretna in Jefferson Parish to Algiers Junction (MP 1.5). Algiers Junction is located 

just east of Gouldsboro Yard (MP 1.9) in Orleans Parish. This subdivision is a single-track 

subdivision with a maximum operating speed of 10 miles per hour (mph). The Harvey Canal 

movable rail bridge is located at MP 4.4 with its normal position closed to accommodate 

vehicular traffic on 4th Street. The NOGC Railway does not own track along the Westwego 

Subdivision, rather they operate within this subdivision under a long-term lease with the UPRR. 

Belle Chasse Subdivision. The limits of the NOGC-owned Belle Chasse Subdivision is from endof-track location (MP 0.0) north of Algiers Junction (MP 0.5), to its end of track location 

(MP 24.0) located south of Myrtle Grove (MP 23.0). The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) 

movable rail bridge is located at MP 6.0 with its normal position open to accommodate 

waterway navigation. The Belle Chasse Subdivision overlays with the Westwego Subdivision at 

Gouldsboro Yard. For trains traveling to or from the Belle Chasse Subdivision, locomotives are 

repositioned to the opposite end of the train. 

As noted above, the railway crosses two major water bodies on moveable bridges: the Harvey 

Canal adjacent to 4th Street in Harvey and the GIWW adjacent to LA 23 in Belle Chasse. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-12

2.2.2 Existing Rail Alignment Characteristics 

An overview of existing rail alignment characteristics between the Harvey Canal and Walker 

Road is presented herein. The alignment characteristics are generally described by individual 

segments along the rail corridor which are depicted in Figure 2-4. Table 2-1 provides a 

summary of the alignment characteristics by segment, and also includes a summary of the 

public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings (at-grade crossings) within the Study Area. 

The location of public at-grade crossings are listed in Table 2-1. Figure 2-5 shows photographs 

that represent typical conditions along the existing rail alignment. 

On the northern limit of the Study Area within Harvey, the NOGC rail corridor parallels LA 18 

(4th Street) on the north side beginning at the Harvey Canal extending to near Dolhonde Street 

(Segment 1). The tracks then merge into 4th Street in downtown Gretna (Segment 2). The 

tracks are located within the center of 4th Street between Dolhonde Street and Amelia Street 

for approximately 0.46 miles; there are eleven public at-grade crossings within these limits. 

Adjacent land use within Segments 1 and 2 consists of densely developed residences, 

businesses, schools and churches. The City of Gretna and Jefferson Parish West Bank 

government offices are located within downtown Gretna. 

Within Segments 3 through 5, the rail alignment is located within exclusive UPRR right-of-way 

(ROW). The railroad crosses several residential streets within Gretna with the tracks extending 

northward past Weidman Street to the Gouldsboro Yard and the Port of New Orleans Perry 

Street Wharf (Segment 4). 

Beginning on the north end of the Belle Chasses Subdivision, the NOGC Railway turns south 

through Gretna. The tracks run within Madison Street between Americus Street and Stumpf 

Boulevard for approximately 0.73 miles (Segment 6). The rail alignment continues southward 

parallel to Madison Street and then merges within exclusive NOGC ROW to US Highway 90 

Business (US 90B), which is known as the Westbank Expressway. The alignment crosses the 

Westbank Expressway eastbound and westbound frontage roads at-grade. After crossing the 

Westbank Expressway, the alignment is located within exclusive right-of-way through a 

residential neighborhood in Gretna and Mel Ott Park and then merges into the LA 23 corridor 

near 23rd Street (Segment 8). 

Beginning south of 23rd Street and extending to Main Street in Belle Chasse, the NOGC Railway 

generally parallels LA 23 for the majority of its length (Segments 9 through 11). Within these 

limits, that tracks cross several major Westbank collectors and arterial roadways. There are a 

total of 57 at-grade crossings within these limits; 30 of which are public at-grade crossings. 

Within Plaquemines Parish, a short segment of the rail corridor diverges from the LA 23 rightof-way near Main Street and runs parallel to the Mississippi River Levee/Highway 11 then reemerges back into the LA 23 corridor near Russell Drive (Segment 12). Russell Drive is the main 

entrance to the NAS JRB. The rail alignment continues in a southerly direction parallel to LA 23 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-13

and the Mississippi River to Walker Road (Segment 13). Beyond the Study Area, the NOGC

tracks continue south to the end of track near Myrtle Grove. 

Figure 2-4. Existing Highway Rail At-Grade Crossings within Study Area 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-14

Table 2-1. Existing NOGC Rail Alignment Characteristics within Study Area 

Segment No.

(see Figure 2-4) Area Approximate 

Segment Limits

Rail Alignment

Location

Adjacent Land 

Use

Length

(Miles)

No. of 

At-grade Crossings List of Public At-Grade Crossings Remarks

Public Private Total

Westwego Subdivision

1 Harvey Harvey Canal Dolhonde 

Street

Exclusive UPRR ROW;

parallel to 4th Street Industrial 1.06 2 3 5 Bark Dr, Grefer Ln

See Figure 2-5; 

photo 1

2

Gretna/

Jefferson 

Parish

Dolhonde 

Street Amelia Street

In-street running; 

Within 4th Street through 

downtown Gretna

Commercial & 

Residential 0.46 11 0 11

Dolhonde St, Derbigny St, Weyer St, Huey P Long Ave (NB), 

Huey P Long Ave (SB), Newton St, Lavoisier St, Lafayette St, 

Amelia St (SB), Amelia St (NB), Amelia St (north side of 

tracks) 

See Figure 2-5; 

photo 2

3 Amelia Street Ocean Avenue Exclusive UPRR ROW Industrial 0.52 3 0 3 Fried St, Richard St, Ocean Ave

4

Ocean

Avenue

Jefferson/

Orleans Parish 

Line

Exclusive UPRR ROW Commercial & 

Residential 1.10 3 0 3 Hamilton St, Virgil St, Wiedman St 

Access to 

Gouldsboro Yard

& Perry St Wharf 

5

Jefferson/

Orleans Parish 

Line

McDonough

Street Exclusive UPRR ROW Industrial 0.35 0 0 0 None

Belle Chasse Subdivision

6

Gretna/

Jefferson 

Parish

McDonough

Street Cook Street In-street running; within Madison Street

Commercial & 

Residential 0.73 9 0 9

Americus St, Rupp St, Perry St, Isbell St, Burmaster St, 

Anson Street, Weidman St, Virgil St

See Figure 2-5; 

photo 3

7 Cook Street

US 90B/

Westbank

Expy

Parallel to Madison Street; 

Exclusive NOGC ROW 1

Commercial & 

Residential 0.76 3 0 3 Kepler Street, Stumpf Blvd (NB), Stumpf Blvd (SB)

1 Behind Westside 

Shopping Center

8

US 90B/

Westbank Expy 23rd Street2 Exclusive NOGC ROW through neighborhood

Commercial & 

Residential 0.72 4 0 4

US 90 B (WB and EB frontage roads), 

Marie Dr, 23rd St

2 Opposite to Mel 

Ott Park entrance

9 23rd Street

Jefferson/

Plaquemines 

Parish Line

Exclusive NOGC ROW parallel 

to LA 23

Commercial & 

Residential 2.54 14 18 32

25th St, Gretna Blvd (SB), Gretna Blvd (NB), Whitney Ave 

(SB), Whitney Ave (NB), Fairfield Ave, Wright Ave (SB), 

Wright Ave (NB), Briant St, Terry Pkwy (SB), Terry Pkwy 

(NB), Behrman Hwy (SB), Behrman Hwy (NB #1), Behrman 

Hwy (NB #2-RT Lane)

Major Westbank

roadway crossings

within this segment

10

Belle 

Chasse/

Plaquemine

s Parish

Jefferson/

Plaquemines 

Parish Line

GIWW Exclusive NOGC ROW parallel 

to LA 23

Commercial & 

Residential 0.67 4 0 4 Burmaster St, Mildred St, Planters Canal St, X St 

11 GIWW Main Street Exclusive NOGC ROW parallel 

to LA 23

Commercial & 

Residential 1.84 12 9 21

R St, Vista Dr, H St, Woodland Hwy (SB #1-RT Lane), 

Woodland Hwy (SB #2), Woodland Hwy (NB), Kenneth Dr, 

Eve St, Kimble St, E 3rd St, Ave G, Main St

See Figure 2-5; 

photo 4

12 Main Street Russell Drive Exclusive NOGC ROW parallel 

to Mississippi River

Commercial & 

Residential 2.81 4 4 8

Picou Dr, Tiemaker Rd, Seatrain Rd, Belle Chasse Launch 

Rd

NOGC Belle Chasse 

Yard

13 Russell Drive Walker Road Exclusive NOGC ROW parallel 

to LA 23

Commercial, 

Residential & 

Industrial

2.67 4 122 16

S. Concord Rd, Sewer Plant Rd, Dockside Rd, 

Walker Rd

2 

Four private 

crossings provide 

access to the 

Chevron Oronite 

Plant 

TOTAL 16.03 73 46 119
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-15

Rail Alignment along LA 23 

within Segment No. 11 

(photo 4 left) 

Rail Alignment Parallel to 4th Street 

within Segment No. 1 (photo 1 right)

Rail Alignment/In-Street Running Along 

4th Street within Segment No. 2 

(photo 2 left)

Rail Alignment/In-Street Running 

along Madison Street within 

Segment No. 6 (photo 3 right)

Figure 2-5. Photographs of Typical Conditions along the Existing Rail Alignment
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-16

Within the northern portion of the Study Area, tracks intersect with the existing local street grid 

within the City of Gretna. Along 4th Street and Madison Street, the tracks are located within the 

existing roadway (total length 1.19 miles) causing operational issues for both vehicular and 

train traffic. 

Along a 5.8-mile portion of the Belle Chasse Subdivision (Segments 8 through 11), the railway 

crosses the US 90B frontage roads and then merges into the Belle Chasse Highway corridor. The 

rail alignment crosses several principal arterials including Terry Parkway, LA 428 (Behrman 

Highway) and LA 406 (Woodland Highway). Within this subdivision, the number of rail crossings 

is greatest and includes many at-grade crossings at roadways and private driveways which 

provide access to individual parcels ranging from individual home sites to large retail shopping 

centers. As previously shown in Table 2-1, there are 119 at-grade crossings located between 

the Harvey Canal and Walker Road; 73 of which are public at-grade crossings. 

2.2.3 Customers Served by the NOGC Railway 

The NOGC Railway has a common carrier agreement with the UPRR to serve all customers along 

the Westwego Subdivision. As shown in Figure 2-6, existing customers that are served by NOGC 

east of the Harvey Canal along 4th Street include: 

 Abrasive Products and Equipment, LLC (shown as “APE” on Figure 2-6) 

 Blackwater Harvey, LLC 

 International Matex Tank Terminal (IMTT) 

According to the NOGC Railway, Abrasive Products and Equipment, LLC has existing rail capacity 

of three cars and IMTT has rail capacity of nine cars. Blackwater Harvey is currently expanding 

its operations to include additional tanks and the installation of new track. The upgraded rail 

capacity of Blackwater Harvey is unknown due to the uncertainty of the length and layout of 

the tracks being installed. As shown in Figure 2-6, all three of these businesses are located 

between the Harvey Canal and downtown Gretna. The most eastern of these industries is IMTT 

and to switch them is a west to north movement; subsequently track headroom5

 east of the 

IMTT switch is not needed. NOGC presently switches in the most eastern track within 

Blackwater Harvey and does not use track headroom near Dolhonde Street. 

The Port of New Orleans owns the Perry Street Wharf which has historically been served by the 

NOGC Railway. Although the NOGC has a common carrier obligation to serve all customers, the 

Perry Street Wharf currently has no industrial rail users. Subsequently, there is no rail service to 

the Perry Street Wharf facility. Currently, NOGC’s switching operations take place at 

Gouldsboro Yard, which is immediately adjacent to the Perry Street Wharf. 

 

5

Track headroom refers to track on the mainline that would be needed to stage cars to serve the terminals. In this case, no 

headroom is needed.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-17

2.2.4 NOGC Operations and Maintenance 

Train Volume and Distribution. According to the NOGC Railway, the current train volume in the 

Westwego Subdivision is 5 to 6 trains per day on average, Monday through Friday. The train 

schedule is 8 am, 11:30 am, 2:30 pm, 5 pm and 12 midnight. The numbers of cars per train can 

vary between 5 and 50 cars, with each car having an average length of 60 feet including the 

coupling. This equates to train lengths ranging from 300 feet to 3,000 feet. A high demand 

scenario consists of longer trains, varying in size between 60 and 110 cars with 2 locomotives. 

Under this scenario, train lengths can range from 3,600 feet to 6,600 feet. 

The current train volume in the Belle Chasse Subdivision is 3 trains per day on average, Monday 

through Friday. The train schedule is 11 am, 5 pm and 10 pm. The numbers of cars per train can 

vary between 90 and 110 cars, with each car having an average length of 60 feet including the 

coupling. Train lengths range from 5,400 feet to 6,600 feet. As there is no direct connection 

between the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions, trains traveling between the two 

subdivisions must split at Gouldsboro Yard and reassemble. According to NOGC, this process 

blocks Weidman Street on the Westwego Subdivision for 25 to 30 minutes. When reassembled, 

Figure 2-6. Existing NOGC Customers
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-18

the unit train will block Madison Street from Americus Street to Kepler Street for approximately 

40 minutes while the NOGC Railway completes a full set and air test. 

Train Operating Speed. The average train operating speed provided by the NOGC Railway for 

both subdivisions is 10 mph. This operating speed corresponds to the maximum timetable 

speed as contained in the USDOT Crossing Inventory database for each at-grade crossing. Both 

of the rail subdivisions traverse populated areas, where dense surrounding development, 

coupled with the adjacent roadway network, results in numerous public and private at-grade 

crossings. These existing conditions result in train speeds operating slower than 10 mph due to 

the number of conflict points between trains and local vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 

In-street operations significantly affect train travel time and speed. Typical in-street operating 

speeds of 2 mph to 4 mph exist. According to NOGC Railway observations of current 

operational conditions, it takes 12 to 20 minutes for a train to travel the in-street segment on 

4th Street between Dolhonde Street and Amelia Street, depending on the direction of travel. 

Travel along the in-street segment on Madison Street from Americus Street to Stumpf 

Boulevard takes about 13 minutes to clear. 

Maintenance Yard. NOGC’s Belle Chasse Yard is located in Plaquemines Parish where the rail 

corridor diverges from the LA 23 right-of-way at Main Street and runs parallel to the Mississippi 

River levee and Highway 11. The maintenance yard is generally located in the northern portion 

of Segment 12 (Segment 12 is depicted in Figure 2-4) and is bounded by Seatrain Road to the 

north and Belle Chasse Launch Road to the south. 

2.3 Relocation Corridor 

The portion of the Study Area that is the subject of the 

NOGC Railway relocation has been identified as the 

“Relocation Corridor” (Figure 2-7). The Relocation Corridor 

is situated on the west side of the Study Area, generally 

bordering the Harvey Canal from 4th Street southward to 

the GIWW. Destrehan Avenue is located on the west side 

of the Harvey Canal, while Peters Road is located on the 

east side. South of the GIWW, the Relocation Corridor 

borders the NAS JRB property and extends to LA 23 near 

Walker Road in Belle Chasse. 

Within the Relocation Corridor, land use north of the 

GIWW is comprised of industrial, commercial and 

residential use. South of the GIWW, the area is primarily 

undeveloped, forest land. Figure 2-8 depicts photographs 

along Peters Road which generally characterize existing 

conditions within the Relocation Corridor. The UPRR 

Hooper Spur track, which is located on the west side of Peters Road, is depicted therein.

Figure 2-7. Relocation Corridor
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-19

Industrial use and UPRR Hooper 

Spur along Peters Road 

(photo right; view facing south)

Peters Road north of Lapalco 

Boulevard adjacent to Hooper Spur 

(photo left; view facing south)

Peters Road south of Lapalco 

Boulevard adjacent to 

Boomtown Floodwall 

(photo right; view facing north)

Figure 2-8. Photographs of Existing Conditions within the Relocation Corridor
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-20

2.4 Conceptual Alignment Options 

One of the initial EA tasks was to conduct an Alternatives Analysis on an initial set of 

alternatives which were defined as the conceptual alignment options. The detailed analysis for 

the conceptual alignment options is included in the Tier I Alternatives Analysis – Screening 

Evaluation,6 which is summarized herein. The conceptual alignment options were derived from 

review of prior studies pertaining to the development and feasibility of rail alignment 

alternatives in the following reports (available from RPC upon request): 

 Plaquemines Parish Intermodal Feasibility Study (DMJM Harris 2002) 

 Conceptual Engineering Report, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway, Proposed Railroad 

Relocation & Extension, Jefferson & Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana (HDR 2011a) 

 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) IV Grant Application, 

New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railroad, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (USDOT 2012) 

The conceptual alignment options (options) are depicted in Figure 2-9 (with their corresponding 

alignment color) and were sequentially numbered from west to east as follows: 

 Option 1 – West of the Harvey Canal generally along Destrehan Avenue (light blue). 

 Option 2 – East of the Harvey Canal following the Hooper Spur track along Peters Road 

to Lapalco Boulevard (yellow). 

 Option 3 – East of the Harvey Canal following the Hooper Spur track along Peters Road 

then merging into vacant parcels south of US 90B, continuing south to Lapalco 

Boulevard (purple). 

 Option 4 – Same as Option 3 except follows St. Joseph Lane from 4th Street to US 90B 

instead of Peters Road (red segment combined with purple). 

 

6

 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-21

Figure 2-9. Conceptual Alignment Options 

2.4.1 Description of Conceptual Alignment Options 

As part of the Tier I Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation, plans sheets depicting each of 

the conceptual alignment were developed. The options are described below and an overview 

map is included within Appendix A. 

Option 1 

The proposed track for Option 1 would begin along the Westwego Subdivision, west of the 

existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge, at a new turnout with a straight move onto the track that 

crosses 4th Street and Destrehan Avenue and continues south along the east side of Destrehan 

Avenue. Option 1 track would remain at-grade south of US 90B to a point where it crosses over 

the Cousins Canal Floodwall, requiring a new bridge east of the Cousins Canal Pump Station. 

The proposed alignment then crosses under the Lapalco Boulevard Overpass and continues 

south into the wooded area west of the Harvey Canal West Bank Levee.

The Option 1 alignment crosses over Harvey Canal, Barataria Bayou, and the GIWW, which 

would require three movable bridges before continuing south and crossing the proposed Peters 

Road Extension. Option 1 then crosses Bayou Barriere, which would require a bridge. After 

crossing Bayou Barriere, the proposed Hero Yard would be located south of the New Orleans 

NAS JRB. The proposed track then proceeds southeast towards LA 23. After crossing LA 23, the 

Option 1 alignment would connect to the existing NOGC Belle Chasse Subdivision track with a 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-22

wye7 connection, allowing trains to continue south along the existing track or to operate 

northward to the NOGC Belle Chase Yard. The rail crossing at LA 23 would either be at-grade or 

grade separated, depending on public input. 

Option 2

The proposed track for Option 2 would begin along the Westwego Subdivision, east of the 

existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge, at a new turnout with a straight move onto new track that 

crosses 4th Street to the east side of northbound Peters Road. The alignment would continue 

southward and cross southbound Peters Road near Gold Street to the west side of Peters Road 

where the alignment would merge into the Hooper Spur right-of-way. In numerous locations 

along the Hooper Spur, the rails and ties remain in-place. 

Option 2 track would then continue south under US 90B and Lapalco Boulevard to a point 

where the track would cross Peters Road at-grade near the northern boundary of the 

Boomtown Floodwall in the vicinity of the proposed Jefferson Parish West Bank Animal Shelter 

(formerly the Hook-n-Slice Golf Range). The track continues south in mostly undeveloped land, 

requiring a new bridge to cross over Murphy Canal. Continuing south, the track would be gradeseparated over Bayou Barataria, Engineers Road and the GIWW. A movable bridge over the 

GIWW is proposed. 

Option 2 would then cross Buccaneer Road near East Bayou Road and would parallel the east 

side of the proposed Peters Road Extension before crossing Bayou Barriere, which would 

require a bridge. After crossing Bayou Barriere, the proposed Hero Yard would be located south 

of the NAS JRB. The proposed track then proceeds southeast towards LA 23. After crossing 

LA 23, the Option 2 alignment is identical to Option 1. 

Option 3

The proposed track for Option 3 would begin along the Westwego Subdivision, east of the 

existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge at a new turnout with a straight move onto new track that 

crosses 4th Street to the east side of northbound Peters Road. Option 3 would continue south 

along the east side of Peters Road under US 90B, where the track shifts to the east just south of 

14th Street to an undeveloped north-south utility corridor between Peters Road and Pailet 

Avenue. The Option 3 alignment would continue southward to Lester Street where the track 

would be elevated in order to cross Lapalco Boulevard. The grade-separation/bridge structure 

at this location would be at an elevation to clear both Lapalco Boulevard and the Jefferson 

Parish West Bank Animal Shelter parcel in its entirety, returning to grade approximately 3,000 

feet south of Lapalco Boulevard. In order to be fully elevated over these existing facilities, the 

grade-separation/bridge structure would be approximately 6,000 feet in length. 

 

7 Railway tracks arranged in the form of a “Y” which are used for turning locomotives and rail cars in the opposite direction.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-23

The track would continue south in mostly undeveloped land, requiring a new bridge to cross 

over Murphy Canal. Between Murphy Canal and the GIWW, the Option 3 alignment would be 

located further east compared to the Option 2 alignment within this same segment. Continuing 

south, the track would be grade-separated over Bayou Barataria, Engineers Road and the 

GIWW, which would require a movable bridge. Option 3 would then cross Buccaneer Road near 

East Bayou Road and would parallel the east side of the proposed Peters Road Extension before 

crossing Bayou Barriere, which requires a bridge. After crossing Bayou Barriere, the proposed 

Hero Yard would be located south of the NAS JRB. The proposed track would then proceed 

southeast towards LA 23. After crossing LA 23, the Option 3 alignment is identical to Option 1. 

Option 4

The proposed track for Option 4 would begin along the Westwego Subdivision, east of the 

existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge, at a new turnout with a straight move onto new track that 

would cross 4th Street to the west side of St. Joseph Lane. The track would continue south 

along the west side of St. Joseph Lane, under the elevated US 90B/Westbank Expressway. South 

of US 90B, the remaining alignment for Option 4 coincides with Option 3. 

2.4.2 Evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Options 

This section compares the impacts of each of the four conceptual alignment options. The intent 

is not to describe all impacts but to briefly outline those impacts that differentiate the options. 

The impacts considered were categorized as follows: 

 Physical Environment Considerations – Length of track; acres of required right-of-way 

(ROW); and required infrastructure including bridge and tunnel improvements, new 

stationary and moveable bridges, and grade separations. 

 Human Environment Considerations – Impacts to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, 

required at-grade rail crossing (safety considerations), number of parcels impacted, and 

impacts to residences and businesses potentially requiring relocation. 

 Natural Environment Considerations and Estimated Impacts – Impacts to wetlands and 

consideration of the 100-year floodplain. 

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the key factors that were considered, and comparison of 

potential impacts associated with the conceptual alignment options that were evaluated as part 

of the Tier I Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation.

 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-24

Table 2-2. Summary of Conceptual Alignment Option Impacts 

Evaluation Criteria Units Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Physical Environment Considerations

Length of track Track Feet 51,863 50,644 51,981 51,994

Required 50-foot ROW Acres 60 42 60 60

Major bridge crossings Number 6 4 5 5

Moveable bridges 1 Number 3 1 1 1

Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge 

improvements required Yes/No No Yes Yes Yes

Harvey Canal Tunnel (HCT) 

constraints Description Reinforce Top of HCT None Overpass of HCT Approach

Overpass of 

HCT Approach

Bridge over Cousins Canal 

Floodwall required Yes/No Yes No No No

Grade-separation/bridge over 

Lapalco Boulevard and West

Bank Animal Shelter

Yes/No No No Yes Yes

Connection to existing rail at 

LA 23 (TBD) 2

Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Human Environment Considerations

Requires new track along a 

residential street Yes/No No No No Yes

At-grade public road crossings Number 14 5 21 22

At-grade private industry 

access crossings Number 33 68 11 11

Number of parcels impacted Number 105 26 45 48

Potential relocations -

commercial Number 26 10 14 24

Natural Environment Considerations

Wetlands directly impacted 3 Acres 32 25 26 26

Within the 100-Year floodplain Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Notes: 

1. All options require a moveable bridge over the GIWW; Option 1 also requires movable bridges over Harvey Canal and Bayou 

Barataria. 

2. Assumes a grade separation (roadway over rail) at LA 23, however an at-grade crossing is under consideration. 

3. Based on an estimate of the track length passing through wetland areas multiplied by 50-foot ROW and converted to acres. 

The four conceptual alignment options were evaluated to identify potential fatal flaws (e.g. 

routes that were not geometrically or engineeringly feasible) and to screen out the options that 

showed the least amount of promise, or were deemed unreasonable upon further anaylsis. 

Based on the analysis of potential impacts, the outcome of this task resulted in eliminating 

Conceptual Alignment Option 1 and Conceptual Alignment Option 4. These options were 

eliminated due to greater numbers of residential impacts, higher construction costs (three 

required movable bridges), and engineering factors such as greater structural impacts and 

potential modifications to both existing roadway infrastructure (Harvey Canal tunnel) and flood 

control structures. Conceptual Alignment Options 2 and 3 were retained because they best met 

the purpose and need. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-25

A public meeting was held on September 22, 2015 at the Mel Ott Park Multi-Purpose Center in 

Gretna to share the project scope and solicit stakeholder and public input on the Project’s 

purpose and need, to present the range of alternatives under study, and to obtain key 

information to be considered in the Alternatives Analysis process. The four conceptual 

alignment options were presented at the public meeting and the public was asked to comment 

on the options that were eliminated and those that were retained. Of the 18 commenters who 

filled out the survey questionnaire regarding the conceptual alignment options, the majority 

(16 commenters) agreed with the elimination of Conceptual Alignment Options 1 and 4. One 

commenter agreed with eliminating Option 4 because of its proximity to residential 

neighborhoods, however did not agree with eliminating Option 1 because of personal 

preference to its more favorable isolated location on the west side of the Harvey Canal. 

2.5 Preliminary Alternatives 

Two conceptual alignment options were retained as part of the initial Tier I Alternatives 

Analysis and were further evaluated and modified to become the Tier II preliminary 

alternatives. The initial transition from the retained conceptual alignment options to the 

preliminary alternatives was accomplished through re-naming only, as follows: 

 Conceptual Alignment Option 2 was renamed Preliminary Alternative A; and 

 Conceptual Alignment Option 3 was renamed Preliminary Alternative B 

The detailed analysis associated with the preliminary alternatives is included in the Tier II 

Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation8 and is summarized herein. Throughout the 

Alternatives Analysis, the preliminary alternatives were formulated and evaluated with input 

from the public, key stakeholders and the Project Management Committee (PMC). The result of 

the Tier II Alternatives Analysis is a recommendation on the selection of the preferred 

alternative by the PMC, with concurrence from the Federal Railroad Administration. 

For the initial Tier II screening, the two preliminary alternatives were evaluated. The alignment 

associated with Preliminary Alternative A is depicted in yellow within Figure 2-10, while 

Preliminary Alternative B is shown in purple. Appendix A contains overview maps of the 

preliminary alternatives; a brief description of each of the preliminary alternatives follows. 

 

8 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-26

Northern portion of corridor

Southern portion of corridor

Figure 2-10. Preliminary Alternatives

Northern portion of corridor
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-27

2.5.1 Preliminary Alternative A Description 

Preliminary Alternative A would begin along the NOGC Westwego Subdivision, east of the 

existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge, at a new turnout with a straight move onto new track that 

would cross 4th Street to the west side of northbound Peters Road. The alignment would 

continue southward and cross over southbound Peters Road near Gold Street to the west side 

of Peters Road where the alignment would transition into the UPRR Hooper Spur ROW. In 

numerous locations along the Hooper Spur, existing tracks and railroad ties remain in-place 

(previously seen in Figure 2-8). 

Preliminary Alternative A would continue within the Hooper Spur ROW southward under the 

elevated portions of US 90B and Lapalco Boulevard, to a point where the track would cross 

Peters Road at-grade near the southern boundary of the proposed Jefferson Parish West Bank 

Animal Shelter property. 

The alignment would continue south in mostly undeveloped land that is situated between the 

Jefferson Parish West Bank Animal Shelter property and Murphy Canal. A new bridge would be 

required to cross Murphy Canal. After crossing Murphy Canal, the alignment would continue 

again through undeveloped land southward to Bayou Barataria. The alignment would be gradeseparated over Bayou Barataria, Engineers Road and the GIWW. A movable bridge would be 

required over the intracoastal waterway. 

Preliminary Alternative A would then cross Buccaneer Road at-grade near East Bayou Road and 

would parallel the east side of the proposed Peters Road Extension before crossing Bayou 

Barriere, which would require a bridge. After crossing Bayou Barriere, a proposed rail 

maintenance yard, identified as the Hero Yard, would be located south of the NAS JRB. The 

alignment would then proceed southeast towards LA 23. The rail crossing at LA 23 would 

initially be an at-grade crossing and may be grade-separated in the future. 

After crossing LA 23, the track would connect to the existing NOGC Belle Chasse Subdivision 

track with a wye connection, allowing trains to continue south along the existing track or to 

operate northward to the NOGC Belle Chase Yard. 

2.5.2 Preliminary Alternative B Description 

Similar to Preliminary Alternative A, Preliminary Alternative B would begin along the NOGC 

Westwego Subdivision east of the existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge at a new turnout with a 

straight move onto new track that crosses 4th Street to the east side of northbound Peters 

Road. Preliminary Alternative B would continue south along the east side of Peters Road to US

90B/Westbank Expressway. At the US 90B crossing, a three-level configuration would occur: the 

proposed rail alignment would be located at-grade; the existing Westbank Expressway is 

elevated over the rail; and the existing Harvey Canal Tunnel roadway is depressed or below 

grade. Depending on the horizontal location and length of the Harvey Canal Tunnel crossing, 

the structural integrity of the Harvey Canal Tunnel may need to be assessed. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-28

South of the Westbank Expressway, the track would shift to the east just south of 14th Street 

(extended) to an undeveloped north-south utility corridor between Peters Road and Pailet 

Avenue. The alignment for Preliminary Alternative B would continue southward to Lester Street 

where the track would be elevated (embankment section/bridge structure) in order to cross 

over Lapalco Boulevard. The required grade-separation at this location would cross over the 

Lapalco Boulevard bridge approach span which continues southward where it is elevated over 

both Peters Road and the Harvey Canal. The rail alignment would continue to be elevated over 

the Jefferson Parish West Bank Animal Shelter parcel (formerly the Hook-n-Slice Golf Range), 

returning to grade approximately 3,000 feet south of Lapalco Boulevard. 

The alignment would continue south in mostly undeveloped land, requiring a new bridge over 

Murphy Canal. Between Murphy Canal and Bayou Barataria, the north-south alignment would 

be located further east compared to Preliminary Alternative A. The alignment would continue 

southward crossing over Bayou Barataria, Engineers Road and the GIWW on structure/bridge. 

The GIWW crossing would require a movable bridge. 

Preliminary Alternative B would then cross Buccaneer Road at-grade near East Bayou Road and 

would parallel the east side of the proposed Peters Road Extension before crossing Bayou 

Barriere, which would also require a bridge. After crossing Bayou Barriere, the proposed Hero 

Yard would be located south of the NAS JRB. The alignment would then proceed southeast 

towards LA 23, where an at-grade crossing is proposed. After crossing LA 23, Preliminary 

Alternative B would connect to the existing NOGC Belle Chasse Subdivision track with a wye 

connection, allowing trains to continue south along the existing track or to operate northward 

to the NOGC Belle Chase Yard. 

2.5.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives

An initial assessment of Preliminary Alternatives A and B was conducted. Table 2-3 presents a 

summary of the evaluation criteria that were considered as part of the Tier II Alternatives 

Analysis – Screening Evaluation and a comparison of potential impacts associated with each of 

the preliminary alternatives. The major differences between Preliminary Alternatives A and B 

include: 

 Potential impacts on residential areas – Preliminary Alternative B would be located 

further east compared to Preliminary Alternative A and would impact more residential 

homes near Pailet Avenue between US 90B and Lapalco Boulevard, in addition to 

several residential neighborhoods located between Lapalco Boulevard and Bayou 

Barataria. 

 At-grade crossings – Preliminary Alternative B would result in 21 new public at-grade 

crossings compared to 5 for Preliminary Alternative A. 

 Crossing US 90B – Preliminary Alternative A would cross under US 90B within the 

existing UPRR Hooper Spur ROW, while the alignment for Preliminary Alternative B 

would result in a three-level crossing that would include an alignment over the Harvey 

Canal tunnel. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-29

 Crossing Lapalco Boulevard – Preliminary Alternative A would cross Lapalco Boulevard 

within the existing UPRR Hooper Spur ROW, while Preliminary Alternative B would 

require an extensive embankment/bridge structure approximately 6,500 feet in length 

to span Lapalco Boulevard and the proposed Jefferson Parish West Bank Animal Shelter 

property. 

Based on the evaluation described above, Preliminary Alternative A was brought forward for 

further consideration. 

Table 2-3. Summary of Preliminary Alternative Impacts 

Evaluation Criteria Units Preliminary 

Alternative A

Preliminary 

Alternative B

Requires new track along or adjacent to a 

residential street Yes/No No Yes

At-grade public road crossings Number 5 21

At-grade private industry access crossings Number 68 11

Number of parcels impacted Number 26 45

Potential relocations – commercial only Number 10 14

Length of track Track Feet 50,644 51,981

Required 50-foot ROW Acres 42 60

Major bridge crossings Number 4 5

Moveable bridges crossing GIWW

(3 bridge types considered) Number 1 1

At US 90B, Harvey Canal Tunnel 

constraints Description None

Potential structural 

evaluation and 

modification of 

tunnel approach

Bridge/structure over Lapalco Boulevard 

and Jefferson Parish West Bank Animal 

Shelter property

Yes/No No Yes; approximately 

6,000 feet long

Wetlands Directly Impacted Acres 25 26

Within the 100-Year Floodplain Yes/No Yes Yes

2.5.4 Preliminary Alternative B Additional Analysis and Elimination 

Following the September 22, 2015 public meeting, additional analyses was conducted on 

Preliminary Alternative B to determine the embankment/bridge requirements associated with 

crossing Lapalco Boulevard and the proposed West Bank Animal Shelter property. Factors that 

were considered included maintaining cross street access to Breaux Avenue which is located 

just north of Lapalco Boulevard and the need to span both Lapalco Boulevard and the animal 

shelter property. Based on the additional analyses, it was determined that the grade-separation 

would need to be approximately 6,500 feet long, which would include both embankment and 

bridge sections. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-30

Based on the potential to impact a greater number of residential homes, potential structural 

conflicts at US 90B over the Harvey Canal Tunnel and higher estimated construction cost 

associated with the Lapalco Boulevard/animal shelter property crossing (6,500-foot long 

bridge/embankment section), Preliminary Alternative B was recommended for elimination by 

the PMC. Preliminary Alternative B would also have impacts on businesses and future land use 

and development along the Peters Road corridor. The rail alignment would bisect several 

currently vacant parcels, potentially rendering the parcels undevelopable in the future. As such, 

Alternative B was eliminated from further consideration. 

2.6 Refinement of Preliminary Alternative A and Additional Considerations 

As part of the continuous Alternatives Analysis process, Preliminary Alternative A was further 

refined and new alignment options were introduced within specific segments of the corridor. 

These modifications were based on additional data and analysis, as well as stakeholder and 

PMC input. The detailed analysis and mapping associated with the refinements to the 

preliminary alternatives is included within the Tier II Alternatives Analysis – Screening 

Evaluation and summarized herein. Presented by location from north to south, the rail 

alignment refinements are listed in Table 2-4 with their corresponding locations throughout the 

Relocation Corridor shown in Figure 2-11. 

Table 2-4. Summary of Rail Alignment Refinements 

Refinement 

Location

Description of 

Rail Alignment Refinements

No. 1 Curve from double track mainline along 4th Street to Peters Road.

No. 2 Rail alignment along the west side of Peters Road – 4th Street to south of 

Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 3 Rail alignment along the east side of Peters Road – 4th Street to south of 

Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 4 Rail alignment along Peters Road south of Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 5 Rail alignment within undeveloped parcels south of Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 6 Rail alignment along the west side of Peters Road parallel to USACE floodwall 

including Peters Road reconstruction.

No. 7 Rail alignment crossing the Murphy Canal.

No. 8 Rail alignment within undeveloped parcels between Murphy Canal crossing 

and GIWW.

No. 9 Rail alignment crossing the GIWW.

No. 10 Movable bridge type crossing the GIWW and proximity to NAS JRB.

No. 11 Rail alignment crossing LA 23 and connection to existing track at LA 23.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-31

Figure 2-11. Rail Alignment Refinement Locations 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-32

2.6.1 Curve from Double Track Mainline Along 4th Street to Peters Road 

Several horizontal curves for the segment of rail that begins on 4th Street and ties into the 

UPRR Hooper Spur on the west side of Peters Road were evaluated. Curve radii evaluated 

ranged from a larger 8 degree 30 minute curve (8.5o) to a smaller 12.5o curve. 

 

 The maximum train speed at an 8.5o

 curve is 10 mph, while the maximum speed at a 

12.5o curve reduces to 5 mph. NOGC indicated a preference for a larger 8.5o curve for 

operational purposes. 

 A larger radius curve (8.5o curve) would locate the track closer to St. Joseph Lane which 

is a residential street. The 8.5o curve would also encroach onto the third block south of 

4th Street near Jennie Street. 

 The proposed curve would cross Peters Road twice potentially leading to operational 

concerns if vehicles are “trapped” within the curve. The appropriate rail crossing 

warning signs and rail crossing devices on Peters Road and Gold Street would mitigate 

this concern. 

 As part of the Preferred Alternative, the PMC recommended a 10.5o curve at this 

location as a tradeoff between the operational considerations and neighborhood 

impacts. 

2.6.2 Rail Alignment along the West Side of Peters Road – 4th Street to South of Lapalco 

Boulevard 

The UPRR Hooper Spur is located on the west side of Peters Road and the existing rail right-ofway varies in width from 20 feet to 35 feet. Portions of the out-of-service track remain in place. 

 Freight rail service on the Hooper Spur diminished over the years and completely ceased 

following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when its then limited-customer base (two to three 

companies) relocated. 

 With the exception of the horizontal curve alignment from 4th Street, there would be 

no public at-grade crossings throughout this segment of Peters Road from Jennie Street 

to Lapalco Boulevard. In contrast, there are numerous private driveways along the 

Hooper Spur. In addition, several businesses located on the west side of Peters Road 

appear to be encroaching within the Hooper Spur ROW using this area for parking. 

 There would be no impacts at US 90B as the rail would be located at-grade beneath the 

elevated portion of US 90B. 

 The crossing at Lapalco Boulevard would be along the existing Hooper Spur track and 

would not impact traffic north side of Lapalco Boulevard at the Lapalco/Peters entranceexit ramp. 

 The PMC recommended evaluating a rail alignment option on the east side of Peters 

Road for comparison to the west side alignment; see Section 2.6.3 below for the east 

side comparison. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-33

2.6.3 Rail Alignment along the East Side of Peters Road – 4th Street to South of Lapalco 

Boulevard 

For comparison purposes, a rail alignment option on the east side of Peters Road was 

evaluated. 

 New 50-foot wide rail ROW would be required throughout the limits. The ROW was 

estimated to be 14.6 acres and would directly impact approximately 29 businesses/ 

structures.

 The east side rail alignment would result in 12 new public at-grade crossings including 

an at-grade crossing at the heavily traveled Lapalco-Peters entrance/exit ramp. 

 There would be no traffic impacts at US 90B as the rail alignment would be at-grade 

beneath the elevated portion of US 90B; however the rail alignment could potentially 

have structural impacts on the Harvey Canal Tunnel. 

 As part of the Preferred Alternative, the PMC recommended to locate the alignment on 

the west side of Peters Road within the existing Hooper Spur ROW. 

2.6.4 Rail Alignment within Undeveloped Parcels South of Lapalco Boulevard 

Further analysis of Preliminary Alternative A was conducted during the Tier II Alternatives 

Analysis within the segment located south of Lapalco Boulevard to Murphy Canal. 

 Preliminary Alternative A would cross Peters Road at-grade approximately 600 feet 

south of Lapalco Boulevard. The at-grade crossing could potentially result in traffic 

impacts. 

 If future traffic on Peters Road increased to a level that would warrant a grade 

separation between Peters Road and Lapalco Boulevard, the at-grade rail crossing would 

be too close to Lapalco Boulevard thus making a highway grade separation difficult to 

achieve. 

 Options evaluated with regard to the location of the rail alignment included closer to 

Murphy Canal or centered within the vacant parcels. With either option, the alignment 

would bisect several parcels of land rendering them generally undevelopable in the 

future. 

 Potential neighborhood impacts would occur due to the proximity of the alignment near 

several Harvey subdivisions including Woodland Oaks, Woodland West and Village 

Green. 

 Currently no local streets intersect with Peters Road along this segment; however, the 

proposed extension of Harvey Boulevard, located between Woodland West and Village 

Green, would result in a public at-grade crossing. 

 The PMC recommended eliminating this segment option due to residential impacts and 

the potential inability to implement future roadway improvements along Peters Road. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-34

2.6.5 Rail Alignment along Peters Road South of Lapalco Boulevard 

Another option identified as part of public comments included keeping the rail alignment within 

the Hooper Spur rail right-of-way on the west side of Peters Road adjacent to the USACE 

Boomtown Floodwall (floodwall). The alignment is approximately 1.7 miles between Lapalco 

Boulevard and Murphy Canal. 

 An initial evaluation of ROW, land rights, easements and ownership adjacent to the 

floodwall was conducted for this segment. 

 Initial considerations and impacts associated with the rail alignment included: 

 Access Impacts: Ingress and egress impacts for businesses located within the 

floodwall protection system.

 Structural Impacts: Geotechnical analyses to determine if the railroad would have 

impacts on the floodwall structural foundation system. 

 Neighborhood Impacts: Proximity of the alignment near several Harvey subdivisions 

including Woodland Oaks, Woodland West and Village Green. The alignment 

adjacent to the floodwall is farther away from these neighborhoods. 

 The PMC recommended continuing to evaluate the alignment along the west side of 

Peters Road following consultation with the USACE New Orleans District; see Section 

2.6.6 below for the continued evaluation. 

2.6.6 Rail Alignment along the West Side of Peters Road Parallel to Floodwall 

Public comments and consultation with the USACE New Orleans District provided additional 

insight to further evaluate the rail alignment option within the UPRR Hooper Spur right-of-way 

on the west side of Peters Road adjacent to floodwall. 

 Further analysis of existing ROW, servitudes and easements along Peters Road parallel 

to the floodwall was undertaken. The proposed rail ROW would be 50 feet in this 

segment. 

 Based on consultation with the USACE New Orleans District, it was indicated that the 

“T-wall” floodwall and the supporting H-piles were designed to accommodate the 

continued presence and operation of the adjacent railroad and its associated rail 

loadings. USACE also noted that 15 feet of clearance between the rail and floodwall shall 

be provided. 

 The rail alignment located adjacent to the floodwall would require drainage 

improvements. PMC members suggested closing in the existing drainage swale on the 

west side of Peters Road to provide space for the 50-foot rail corridor. This in turn would 

require shifting Peters Road to the east to provide sufficient space for both the 

proposed rail and drainage system improvements. Forty feet (40 feet) of additional 

roadway ROW would be required on the east side of Peters Road as part of its 

relocation. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-35

 The proposed extension of Harvey Boulevard would form a “T” intersection with 

relocated Peters Road. With the rail alignment located on the west side of Peters Road, 

an at-grade crossing would be avoided altogether. 

 Peters Road would be completely reconstructed on new alignment between the 

proposed extension of Harvey Boulevard to just south of the Murphy Canal crossing. The 

proposed ROW in this segment is 80 feet wide. 

 The rail alignment would cross Peters Road just north of Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park. 

 As part of the Preferred Alternative, the PMC recommended locating the proposed 

alignment on the west side of Peters Road adjacent to the floodwall and relocating 

Peters Road to the east. 

2.6.7 Rail Alignment Crossing Murphy Canal 

The initial rail alignment crossing the Murphy Canal consisted of a 45 degree angle crossing of 

both the Murphy Canal and a perpendicular outfall canal. In order to minimize potential 

neighborhood impacts in close proximity to the Village Green subdivision, the location of the 

rail crossover/proposed bridge at Murphy Canal was shifted to the south. 

2.6.8 Rail Alignment within Undeveloped Parcels between Murphy Canal Crossing and 

GIWW 

The propose rail alignment between the Murphy Canal and the GIWW was evaluated during 

both the Tier I and Tier II Alternatives Analysis. 

 Preliminary Alternative A and Preliminary Alternative B were initially considered in this 

segment. A third option was suggested by NOGC Railway to provide a secondary option 

to cross the GIWW at an optimal alignment; however this alignment is located closer to 

the Timber Ridge and Timberlane Village subdivisions.

 NOGC requested an 8,000-foot clear siding north of GIWW for train meets. To avoid 

residential impacts, the PMC recommended locating the siding south of the GIWW. 

 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment9(PI-ESA) that was conducted for the Project 

indicates that the vacant wooded parcel was once used as a lay‐down yard for a former 

asbestos pipe coating facility which included an asbestos disposal site. Asbestos 

contaminated soil was abated in 1986; however, it is likely that there is residual asbestos

contaminated soil that would require special handling and disposal procedures. 

 As part of the Preferred Alternative, the PMC recommended retaining Preliminary 

Alternative A within this segment.

2.6.9 Rail Alignment Crossing the GIWW 

The rail alignment crossing the GIWW was evaluated during both the Tier I and Tier II 

Alternatives Analysis. 

 

9

 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-36

 The track profile and vertical geometry requirements to clear Bayou Barataria, the 

GIWW levees, and waterway crossing of the GIWW were coordinated with the US Coast 

Guard and USACE. 

 During Tier II, Preliminary Alternative A was refined to include a longer tangent section 

on the northern approach to the GIWW and to provide a more desirable angle for the 

waterway crossing, i.e., the original 30 degree skew to the waterway was modified to a 

15 degree skew. 

 The rail alignment would be elevated over both Bayou Barataria and the GIWW. The 

required bridge would be approximately 30 feet high at these fixed locations in order to 

be 6 feet above the GIWW levees and to clear Engineers Road. 

 Due to operational limitations, the maximum vertical grade of the rail alignment would 

be 1 percent on both approaches. Given the railroad grade restriction of 1 percent, the 

bridge would begin and end approximately 3,000 feet north and south of Engineers 

Road. 

 The crossing location of the GIWW would potentially impact property and businesses 

located between Bayou Barataria and the GIWW; ROW and relocation impacts would be 

due to the location of bridge columns and piers. 

 Potential encroachment onto NAS JRB airspace was considered. 

 Preliminary Alternative B and the NOGC-suggested GIWW crossing were eliminated 

because of their proximity to the NAS JRB airspace. 

 As part of the Preferred Alternative, the PMC recommended retaining Preliminary 

Alternative A for the GIWW crossing because the alignment crosses the GIWW at a 

more desirable angle and does not impact NAS JRB airspace. 

2.6.10 Movable Bridge Options Crossing the GIWW 

Multiple movable bridge options were evaluated for the GIWW crossing including a swing span, 

rolling bascule and vertical lift. 

 The type of movable bridge crossing the GIWW is restricted to either a swing span or a 

bascule type due to air right restrictions from NAS JRB. The swing span option would not 

interfere with the air rights, while the bascule type would interfere only when in the 

open position. The vertical lift option would be a permanent obstruction within the air 

rights. 

 The bridge would span the levees on each side of the GIWW; have a 150-foot wide 

navigation channel with a minimum 110-foot vertical clearance. 

 The top of rail would be approximately 6 feet above the levee elevation. Multiple 

options were investigated for the crossing alignments (Skew from 55 degrees to 

15 degrees). 

 An unequal arm, swing span movable bridge was identified as the most viable option for 

the Preferred Alternative. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-37

2.6.11 Rail Alignment Crossing LA 23 and Connection to Existing Track at LA 23 

NOGC’s Belle Chasse Yard and Chevron’s Oronite Plant are located north of the proposed atgrade crossing at LA 23. Service to these facilities shall be maintained. Likewise, a connection to 

the southern portion of the NOGC Belle Chasse Subdivision shall remain. 

 Initially, a dual crossing of LA 23 was considered in order to minimize both track length 

and property impacts. The options considered for the crossing at LA 23 included: 1) an 

at-grade crossing and 2) reconstruction of LA 23 which would include a bridge elevated 

over the proposed track. The PMC requested further analyses on a single crossing at 

LA 23. 

 Based on consultation with the USACE New Orleans District, a 15 feet horizontal 

clearance shall be provided between the proposed rail and Mississippi River levee. 

 Concurrence was reached that it would be cost prohibitive to elevate the railroad over 

LA 23. In the future, the crossing would be grade separated (LA 23 raised over the rail) 

as warranted and as funding becomes available. 

2.7 Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative was defined following an extensive Alternatives Analysis that 

included an evaluation of alignment options within various segments of the Relocation 

Corridor. The north and south portions of the Preferred Alternative are shown in Figure 2-12; 

the Preferred Alternative is described below. 

Figure 2-12. Preferred Alternative 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-38

2.7.1 Rail and Roadway Typical Sections 

The entire main line for the Preferred Alternative would be a single-track line. The proposed rail 

and roadway typical sections for the Preferred Alternative were developed using NOGC/UPRR 

rail standards and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) 

roadway standards, respectively. Typical sections were developed for the at-grade rail 

improvements along various segments of the alignment including along Peters Road/Hooper 

Rail Spur, Peters Road/USACE Boomtown Floodwall, rail on new alignment, and within the 

proposed Hero Yard. These various typical sections are presented in greater detail within 

Appendix B, Sheets 3 and 4. 

Beginning at 4th Street and extending south to Gold Street, the Preferred Alternative would be 

constructed on new alignment within a required 50-foot right-of-way. After crossing Peters 

Road just south of Gold Street, the Preferred Alternative would be constructed on the west side 

of Peters Road within the Hooper Rail Spur ROW as shown in Figure 2-13. The existing UPRR 

ROW ranges from 20 to 35 feet wide within these limits. 

Figure 2-13. Proposed Typical Section: Along Peters Road – Gold Street to Lapalco Boulevard

From Lapalco Boulevard to south of the proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension, the Preferred 

Alternative would be constructed on new alignment within a required 50-foot rail right-of-way. 

As required by the USACE, the rail ROW would be offset 15 feet from the adjacent Boomtown 

Floodwall (Figure 2-14). Peters Road would be relocated to the east to accommodate the rail 

ROW and drainage for both the rail and Peters Road. Peters Road would be reconstructed east 

of the rail ROW. The existing Peters Road ROW is 80 feet wide within these limits. Forty feet (40 

feet) of additional roadway right-of-way would be required for the Peters Road reconstruction. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-39

Figure 2-14. Proposed Typical Section: Along Peters Road – Lapalco Boulevard

Between the proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension to just south of Murphy Canal, the 

Preferred Alternative would be constructed on new alignment within a required 50-foot rail 

right-of-way. Within these same limits, Peters Road would be relocated eastward from its 

current alignment to a new location. The proposed Peters Road ROW would be 80 feet wide 

within these limits, thus 80 feet of additional roadway right-of-way would be required for the 

reconstruction of Peters Road. 

On the north and south approaches to the proposed movable bridge over the GIWW, the 

required ROW would be approximately 250 feet to 300 feet wide, respectively in order to 

accommodate the embankment associated with the approach spans for the elevated structure. 

As part of the proposed Hero Yard, an 8,520-foot siding would be provided. Due to its overall 

length, the siding would extend beyond the eastern and western limits of the Hero Yard. The 

siding would be constructed on new alignment within a required 75-foot rail right-of-way 

(Figure 2-15) on the approaches to the Hero Yard. 

 

Figure 2-15. Proposed Typical Section: Along NOGC Siding 

The proposed typical section within the Hero Yard would accommodate the proposed main line 

track, ten yard tracks and the siding track. The main line track would be centered within the 

yard and bordered by 5 yard tracks on each side. The siding track would be located on the north 

side of the yard. The required rail ROW width within the Hero Yard would be 285 feet wide. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-40

2.7.2 Preferred Alternative Alignment 

The horizontal and vertical alignment controls are much more stringent for trains than for 

roadways for several reasons. Railroads require gentler grades, wider turning radii, and larger 

transitional lengths than roadways due to the size and weight of trains. While FRA has 

developed design standards for railroads, each railroad has developed their own stringent 

horizontal and vertical controls to meet the specific needs of their train systems. The horizontal 

and vertical alignments for the Preferred Alternative, discussed herein and detailed in the 

Conceptual Plans in Appendix B, were designed to meet or exceed NOGC/UPRR design criteria. 

The Preferred Alternative alignment is depicted within Appendix B, Sheets A-1 to A-14. 

Appendix B sheet numbers are referenced within the discussion below. 

Horizontal Alignment 

The Preferred Alternative single-track alignment would begin along the NOGC Westwego 

Subdivision approximately 100 feet east of the existing Harvey Canal Bascule Bridge. A new 

turnout consisting of a 10.5o horizontal curve would cross 4th Street to the east side of 

northbound Peters Road. The horizontal curve would bisect several parcels of land between 

Peters Road and St. Joseph Lane. The horizontal curvature of the alignment would continue 

southward to just north of Jennie Street and would then cross over to the west side of Peters 

Road where the proposed track would connect to the UPRR Hooper Spur track (Sheet A-1). 

The Preferred Alternative track would then continue along the west side of Peters Road within 

the UPRR Hooper Spur right-of-way south under US 90B (Sheet A-1) to Lapalco Boulevard 

(Sheet A-1 to Sheet A-4). Within these limits, the existing UPRR ROW varies from 20 feet to 

35 feet. From 4th Street to Lapalco Boulevard, the track begins at Station 0+00 and ends at 

Station 145+0010; a distance of approximately 14,500 feet, or 2.7 miles. 

From Lapalco Boulevard to south of the proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension, the Preferred 

Alternative would parallel the existing Boomtown Floodwall along Peters Road (Sheet A-5 to 

Sheet A-6). The proposed 50-foot rail ROW would be located at least 15 feet from the floodwall. 

The Preferred Alternative alignment would parallel the floodwall on top of the USACE’s 

perpetual underground floodwall easement. Based on consultation with the USACE New 

Orleans District, the “T-wall” floodwall and the supporting H-piles were designed to 

accommodate the continued presence and operation of the railroad and its associated rail 

loadings. From Lapalco Boulevard to just south of the Harvey Boulevard Extension, the track 

begins at Station 145+00 and ends at Station 205+00; a distance of approximately 6,000 feet, or 

1.1 miles. Peters Road would be relocated to the east and reconstructed within these limits. 

The Preferred Alternative alignment would parallel the floodwall within these limits to a point 

where the track would diverge from the floodwall. 

 

10 Station numbers are shown on the Appendix B Preferred Alternative Conceptual Plans. See Glossary for definition of Station.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-41

After diverting from the floodwall, the Preferred Alternative would shift east parallel to existing 

Peters Road and then cross over Murphy Canal (Sheet A-6). Within these limits, the track begins 

at Station 205+00 and ends at Station 225+00; a distance of approximately 2,000 feet, or 

0.4 miles. The rail would cross Peters Road at-grade. A new bridge would be required to cross 

over Murphy Canal. 

Between the proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension to south of Murphy Canal, Peters Road 

would be constructed as a two-lane roadway on new alignment; the proposed roadway ROW is 

80 feet. Access improvements to Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park and businesses located inside the 

floodwall are proposed within this area. As part of the Peters Road relocation, approximately 

8.9 acres of roadway right-of-way would be required from Lapalco Boulevard to south of the 

Murphy Canal crossing. 

Between the Murphy Canal crossing and Bayou Barataria, the alignment would continue south 

in mostly vacant, undeveloped land (Sheet A-6 to Sheet A-7). As previously described in 

Section 2.6.8, the Phase I ESA that was conducted for the Project indicates that the vacant 

wooded parcel was once used as a lay‐down yard for a former asbestos pipe coating facility 

which included an asbestos disposal site. Asbestos contaminated soil was abated in 1986; 

however, it is likely that there is residual asbestos contaminated soil that would require special 

handling and disposal procedures. Within these limits, the track begins at Station 225+00 and 

ends at Station 280+00; a distance of approximately 5,500 feet, or 1.04 miles. 

A new grade-separation/bridge would begin just north of Bayou Barataria and extend 

southward over the GIWW (Sheet A-7 to Sheet A-8). At a 1 percent grade, the bridge would 

begin and end approximately 3,000 feet north and south of Engineers Road. The required 

bridge would be approximately 30 feet high at its fixed location in order to be 6 feet above the 

GIWW levees and to clear Engineers Road. The crossing over the GIWW would require a 

movable bridge; a swing span option is recommended as it will not interfere with the NAS JRB 

air rights. The movable bridge would span the levees on each side of the GIWW; have a 

150-foot wide navigation channel with a minimum 110-foot vertical clearance. Some businesses 

would be impacted within the footprint of the GIWW bridge. Within these limits, the track 

begins at Station 280+00 and ends at Station 312+00; a distance of approximately 3,200 feet, or 

0.6 miles. 

The Preferred Alternative would then cross Buccaneer Road near East Bayou Road. A bridge is 

proposed at this location to cross an adjacent drainage swale that parallels Buccaneer Road. 

The alignment would continue in mostly undeveloped land south of the GIWW and parallel to 

the east side of the proposed Peters Road Extension before crossing Bayou Barriere, which also 

would require a bridge (Sheet A-8 to Sheet A-10). Within these limits, the track begins at 

Station 312+00 and ends at Station 390+00; a distance of approximately 7,800 feet, or 

1.5 miles. 

After crossing Bayou Barriere, a proposed rail maintenance yard, identified as the Hero Yard, 

would be located south of the New Orleans NAS JRB (Sheet A-10 to Sheet A-12). An 8,250-foot 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-42

clear siding would be provided within the Hero Yard for train meets. Within these limits, the 

track begins at Station 390+00 and ends at Station 475+00; a distance of approximately 

8,500 feet, or 1.6 miles. The proposed Hero Yard would accommodate the proposed main line 

track, ten yard tracks of varying length and the siding track. The siding track would be accessed 

using turnouts within Hero Yard. Ancillary features such as offices, maintenance shops, access 

roads, internal roads and fencing would be provided as part of the development of the Hero 

Yard. 

The Preferred Alternative alignment proceeds southeast towards LA 23 (Sheet A-12). The rail 

crossing at LA 23 would be an at-grade crossing. From the Hero Yard to the east side of LA 23, 

the track begins at Station 475+00 and ends at Station 488+00; a distance of approximately 

1,300 feet, or 0.24 miles. After crossing LA 23, the track would connect to the existing NOGC 

Belle Chasse Subdivision track with a wye connection, allowing trains to operate northward to 

the NOGC Belle Chase Yard and Chevron Oronite Plant (Sheet A-13) or to continue south along 

the existing track (Sheet A-14). As part of the wye connection, which is located within 

immediate proximity to the Mississippi River Levee/Highway 11, 15 feet of clearance shall be 

provided between the proposed rail and Mississippi River Levee. A portion of existing track 

along LA 23 would be removed upon construction of the wye connection. 

From 4th Street to the east side of LA 23, the length of the Preferred Alternative is 

approximately 9.3 miles. 

Vertical Alignment 

From 4th Street to the Murphy Canal crossing, the Preferred Alternative vertical profile would 

generally be constructed at-grade to coincide with existing elevations at adjacent roadways and 

driveway access points. This would provide a smooth transition for vehicular traffic as it crosses 

over the rail tracks at these key locations. 

Within undeveloped, vacant parcels, the Preferred Alternative vertical alignment would 

generally be constructed at-grade or to an elevation that it consistent with the 100-year 

floodplain elevation. Within the Hero Yard, the vertical profile of the yard tracks and siding 

would match the profile of the proposed main line alignment. 

The track profile and vertical geometry requirements of the grade-separation/bridge to clear 

Bayou Barataria, the GIWW levees, and crossing of the GIWW were coordinated with the 

US Coast Guard and USACE. Based on the railroad grade restrictions of 1 percent, the gradeseparation would begin and end approximately 3,000 feet north and south of Engineers Road. 

The required movable bridge would be approximately 30 feet high at its fixed location in order 

to be 6 feet above the GIWW levees and to clear Engineers Road. 

Similar to the northern portion of the corridor, the Preferred Alternative vertical alignment at 

LA 23 and along the wye connection would generally be constructed at-grade to match existing 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-43

elevations of adjacent public and private at-grade crossings, and tie-in points to the existing 

NOGC track along LA 23. 

2.7.3 Right-of-Way and Relocations 

Required Rail and Roadway Right-of-Way 

Required right-of-way for the Preferred Alternative and Peters Road is depicted within 

Appendix B. Plan Sheets B-1 through B-14 illustrate the existing and required ROW width 

throughout the corridor as follows: 

 Preferred Alternative on new alignment: Required ROW - 50 feet 

 Preferred Alternative along existing UPRR Hooper Spur: Existing ROW - 20 to 35 feet 

 Preferred Alternative along Peters Road adjacent to the Boomtown Floodwall: Required 

ROW - 50 feet (to be taken from existing highway ROW) 

 Preferred Alternative embankment section on the northern approach to the GIWW: 

Required ROW - 250 feet 

 Preferred Alternative embankment section on the southern approach to the GIWW: 

Required ROW - 300 feet 

 Hero Yard: Required ROW - 285 feet 

 Siding west and east of Hero Yard: Required ROW - 75 feet 

 Wye connection east of LA 23: Required ROW - 50 feet 

 Peters Road reconstruction: Required ROW - 40 feet 

 Peters Road on new alignment: Required ROW - 80 feet 

As part of the required right-of way for the Project, residential and business/industrial structure 

relocations associated with the Preferred Alternative are anticipated. Relocations are shown 

within Appendix C in the ROW and Relocation Map set and are more fully described in Section 

3.12.

Right-of-Way Associated with Remnant Parcels 

There are several locations along the corridor, where the required right-of-way for the 

Preferred Alternative and/or relocated Peters Road would leave parcels isolated. Damages to 

the remaining portions of these parcels would likely occur. Therefore, in certain locations, it is 

recommended that remnant parcels be purchased as part of the overall ROW acquisition for 

the Project. Remnant parcels are shown within Appendix C within the ROW and Relocation 

Map set. The north end of the Project between 4th Street and Jennie Street is just one area 

where the acquisition of remnant parcels would be required for the rail. 

Table 2-5 summarizes the required ROW for the Project. The total estimated acres includes 

ROW for the new rail alignment, the Peters Road realignment, and the remnant parcels. As 

shown, approximately 118 acres of right-of-way would be required to construct the Project. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-44

Table 2-5. Estimated Right-of-way 

Rail Relocation Roadway Relocation

Total Estimated ROW

Rail ROW Remnant Parcel ROW Roadway ROW Remnant Parcel ROW

90.25 15.02 8.94 3.64

117.85 acres Total Rail ROW

105.27 acres

Total Roadway ROW

12.58 acres

2.8 Engineering Components Associated with the Preferred Alternative 

A brief description of the engineering components associated with the Preferred Alternative is 

presented herein along with an Estimate of Probable Cost. 

2.8.1 Rail Improvements 

Trackwork 

Approximately 113,449 track feet of rail would be constructed as part of the Preferred 

Alternative which includes the mainline, wye connection, siding and yard tracks as shown in

Table 2-6. Rail tracks within the Hero Yard would include an 8,520-foot long siding and 10-yard 

tracks of varying lengths. The proposed track would consist of 136 pound (136#) continuously 

welded rail with wood ties. Manual and electric turnouts would be installed. A catenary track 

control signal system is also proposed. 

Table 2-6. Preferred Alternative Track Length 

Location Track Length (TF)

4th Street to LA 23 48,954

Wye Connection:

 LA 23 to North 4,279

 LA 23 to South 4,753

 Tangent in-between 1,724

Siding 8,520

Hero Yard Track 48,284

Subtotal 116,575

Less Turnouts 3,126

Total 113,449
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-45

Public At-Grade Crossings 

On the north end of the corridor, a new turnout consisting of a 10.5o horizontal curve would 

connect the proposed rail from 4th Street to the Hooper Rail Spur. The alignment of the 

connection relative to the existing roadway network would result in four new public at-grade 

crossings including 4th Street, Peters Road (2 lane - northbound segment), Gold Street, and 

Peters Road (4 lane - northbound and southbound). Near Murphy Canal, a fifth public at-grade 

crossing would occur where the proposed rail would cross relocated Peters Road. An additional 

public at-grade crossing would occur where the proposed rail crosses LA 23 on the south end of 

the corridor. All six of these public at-grade crossings would be concrete. Advance warning 

signs, pavement markings, signal gates and flashing lights are proposed at each of the six public 

at-grade crossings. Signing and pavement marking plans which illustrate the proposed traffic 

control measures for each of these crossing locations are included in Appendix B, Sheets D-1 to 

D-5. 

Two additional public at-grade crossings would occur on the east side of LA 23 at Dockside Road 

and East Walker Road. These are existing crossings which would simply be shifted/relocated 

eastward away from LA 23 as part of the wye connection. Although these at-grade crossings are 

considered “public” per the USDOT Crossing Inventory database, they exhibit characteristics 

associated with a private at-grade crossing; low traffic volume roadway providing assess to 

limited uses. Industry access crossings (wood) and advance warning signs in accordance with 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways11 would be 

installed at these locations. See Section 3.11.3 for additional details on at-grade crossings. 

Private At-Grade Crossings 

Along the 9.3-mile main line alignment from 4th Street to LA 23, there would be approximately 

85 private at-grade crossings. As part of the existing densely developed industrial land use 

along Peters Road, the majority of these crossings would occur at existing driveways that 

provide access to existing commercial and industrial businesses located along the corridor. The 

remainder of the private at-grade crossings would occur east of LA 23 along the north and 

south segments of the wye connection; 5 additional private at-grade crossings would occur in 

theses segments. Industry access crossings (wood) and advance warning signs in accordance 

with MUTCD would be installed at all private at-grade crossings. 

2.8.2 Bridges and Structures 

There would be four proposed bridge structures associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

Conceptual plans which illustrate the bridge type and layout for each of these locations are 

included within Appendix B, Sheets C-1 to C-5. 

 

11 http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-46

Murphy Canal Bridge 

The proposed rail bridge over Murphy Canal would be a steel through-plate girder/floor beam 

bridge with a span length of approximately 160 feet (Sheet C-1). The superstructure would be 

supported by precast concrete bent caps and concrete drilled shaft foundations. The Preferred 

Alternative alignment crosses the Murphy Canal at a skewed angle; as such the bents would be 

arranged at a 45 degree angle to the rail centerline. The substructure would be comprised of 

reinforced precast concrete caps (including flanking wingwalls) supported by drilled shaft 

foundations. As required by AREMA, the minimum horizontal clearance between the centerline 

of track and adjacent girder (flange) is 9 feet. Permanent shoring would be provided at the 

canal banks and 1 foot of freeboard (minimum) from the low chord elevation is proposed. 

GIWW Crossing – Movable Bridge and Approaches 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 

defines imaginary airspace surfaces surrounding civilian and military airports in the United 

States. These imaginary surfaces are designed to promote air safety and the efficient use of 

navigable airspace. Based on this regulation and in consultation with the NAS JRB, the proposed 

rail bridge structure over the GIWW is within the inner horizontal surface of the imaginary 

airspace, which has an air right restriction on construction at an elevation of 150 feet in height 

or above. The proposed alignment of the Preferred Alternative and associated location of the 

bridge crossing the GIWW is approximately 1 mile north of NAS JRB Runway 14-32. The 

Preferred Alternative is located within the air rights of NAS JRB. The air rights limit the 

maximum elevation of any structures to approximately 120 feet at the GIWW. The adjacent 

GIWW levees are approximately 20 feet higher than the waterway. 

Three movable bridge types were initially considered for the GIWW crossing including a swing 

span, rolling bascule and vertical lift. Upon further evaluation it was determined that a swing 

span movable bridge would not impact the NAS JRB air rights restrictions (Figure 2-16). Based 

on consultation with the US Coast Guard, it was indicated that any bridge that crosses the 

GIWW will need a navigation envelope that features a 150-foot horizontal clearance between 

the fenders and 100-foot vertical clearance from the low chord of the bottom of girder at mean 

high tide. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-47

Figure 2-16. GIWW Movable Bridge Swing Span Option 

As shown in Figure 2-16, the proposed GIWW swing span bridge would consist of three spans 

with a center 329-foot steel truss swing main span, and 206-foot and 209-foot steel truss 

approach spans. The swing main span, which would be supported by a reinforced concrete 

pivot pier, would provide the required 150 feet of horizontal clearance, and unlimited vertical 

clearance in the open position (see also Sheets C-2 and C-3 in Appendix B).

A GIWW bridge and approaches would begin north of Bayou Barataria and extend southward 

over the GIWW. At a 1 percent grade, the bridge would begin and end approximately 3,000 feet 

north and south of Engineers Road. The required bridge would be approximately 30 feet high at 

its fixed location in order to be 6 feet above the GIWW levees and to clear Engineers Road. The 

bridge structure would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above existing 

roadways; such as Engineers Road and others. 

The conceptual design assumes that the bridge approaches would be constructed on fill. On the 

northern approach, the required ROW widens to 250 feet at the bridge approach span in order 

to accommodate the compacted embankment section (Sheet B-7). On the southern approach, 

the required ROW widens to 300 feet to accommodate the embankment section (Sheet B-8). 

In order to minimize ROW associated with the compacted embankment sections for the 

approaches, retaining walls could be considered as an alternative. 

 

Due to the potential location of bridge columns and piers, the crossing location of the GIWW 

would potentially impact property and businesses located between Bayou Barataria and the 

GIWW. For ROW estimation purposes, some of the parcels of land within this area were 

identified as remnant parcels and have been included in the required Project ROW. ROW 

impacts could be mitigated in the future design phase of the Project with topographic surveys 

and more advanced bridge design. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-48

Buccaneer Road Bridge 

The proposed rail bridge over Buccaneer Road would be a 50-foot steel beam bridge with 

30-foot prestressed concrete box beams on each approach. The superstructure would be 

supported by precast concrete pile bent caps and steel H-piles. The total length of the bridge is 

approximately 110 feet (Sheet C-4). The prestressed concrete box beams would be 30 inches 

deep. The Preferred Alternative alignment crosses Buccaneer Road at a 73 degree angle. Class 1 

concrete riprap side slopes would be 1 foot-6 inches thick and configured on a 2 to 1 slope. The 

bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above Buccaneer 

Road. 

Bayou Barriere Bridge 

Similar to the Murphy Canal bridge, the proposed rail bridge over Bayou Barriere would be a 

steel through-plate girder/floor beam bridge with a span width of approximately 115 feet 

(Sheet C-5). The superstructure is supported by precast concrete bent caps and concrete drilled 

shaft foundations. The Preferred Alternative alignment crosses Bayou Barriere at a skewed 

angle; however the bents are set back with sufficient clearance to be arranged at a 90 degree 

angle. As required by American Railway Engineers and Maintenance Association (AREMA), the 

minimum horizontal clearance between the centerline of track and adjacent girder flange is 

9 feet. Permanent shoring would be provided at the canal banks and 1 foot of freeboard 

(minimum) from the low chord elevation is proposed. 

2.8.3 Roadway Improvements 

The Preferred Alternative alignment would require the reconstruction of Peters Road between 

Lapalco Boulevard and Murphy Canal. As part of this environmental study, Jefferson Parish and 

LADOTD PMC members recommended reconstructing Peters Road similar to its current 

roadway typical section which consists of a 2-lane roadway with 12-foot lanes and 

8-foot shoulders, all within 80 feet of ROW. A 6,000-foot (1.14-mile) segment of Peters Road 

would be reconstructed from Lapalco Boulevard to the south side of the proposed Harvey 

Boulevard Extension. Forty feet (40 feet) of additional roadway right-of-way would be required 

within these limits. 

A shorter segment of Peters Road would be constructed on new alignment. The limits of new 

construction extend from just south of the proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension to just south 

of the Murphy Canal crossing; a distance of approximately 2,700 or 0.51 miles. Within the new 

construction limits, the required ROW is 80 feet. Access improvements to Hassel’s Trailer Park 

are also proposed as part of the overall Peters Road reconstruction. The total length of the 

Peter Road reconstruction is estimated at 1.65 miles. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-49

2.8.4 Utilities 

The existing drainage system along Peters Road varies depending on location. Between 4th 

Street and Lapalco Boulevard, subsurface drainage exists. Review of LADOTD Peters Road asbuilt plans indicate that the primary drainage collection system consists of a mainline collector 

which varies in size from 24 inches to 48 inches, while cross drains are typically 24 inches in 

diameter. Between Lapalco Boulevard and Murphy Canal, an open swale drainage system exists 

along Peters Road. As part of the USACE Boomtown Floodwall project, new culverts, inlets and 

driveway cross drains were installed on the west side of Peters Road. 

Overhead power lines are located on both sides of the roadway throughout the Peters Road 

corridor. Other utilities in proximity to the Preferred Alternative alignment include water, 

sewer, telecommunications, gas lines, and others. See Section 3.13 and Section 3.23.7 for 

potential impacts to existing utilities including adjustment, relocation, or modification. 

2.8.5 Construction Sequencing 

Depending on funding availability, the entire Project could be constructed at once or broken 

down into phases to create smaller projects that can be built as funding becomes available. 

Factors such as existing land use, traffic volumes, and business access would all be considered 

to determine the optimal construction phasing, with the goal of minimizing construction 

impacts. 

Between Lapalco Boulevard and Murphy Canal, reconstruction of Peters Road would have to be 

completed prior to implementing the rail construction in order to accommodate Peters Road 

vehicular traffic and to minimize delays. 

2.8.6 Preferred Alternative Railroad Operations 

Once the proposed improvements are constructed, NOGC trains could potentially operate at 

speeds around 20 mph. NOGC may consider a maximum speed of 25 mph to avoid prolonged 

operation in the critical speed range for harmonic rocking, 15 to 21 mph. Slower speeds on the 

northern portion of the corridor may occur due to public at-grade crossings and private atgrade crossings including numerous driveway access points. South of Murphy Canal to LA 23, 

rail operations would essentially be uninterrupted due to the isolated nature of the corridor 

and the absence of vehicular traffic. 

The proposed Hero Yard would improve NOGC operations by providing increased storage 

capacity and an 8,520-foot siding. The Hero Yard would provide a number of operational 

benefits, including a location to meet trains, additional storage, and capacity for growth 

opportunities on the southern end of the corridor such as the Plaquemines Parish port facility 

and others. Switching operations would be more efficient within the Hero Yard compared to 

Gouldsboro Yard, which requires the train to split and block streets within Gretna. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-50

The three existing rail customers that are located on the north side of 4th Street between the 

Harvey Canal and Dolhonde Street would continue to be served by the NOGC. 

2.8.7 Estimate of Probable Cost

An estimate of probable cost was prepared for the Preferred Alternative, which includes

railroad infrastructure and roadway improvements. The estimate includes specific design 

elements and is more detailed compared to the costs estimates that were developed during the 

Tier I and Tier II Alternatives Analysis process. The quantities for certain items were estimated 

based on quantities generated from the conceptual plans, and right-of-way and relocation 

maps. 

The subcategories for the railroad category are road crossings, trackwork, right-of-way, 

earthwork, subballast, and bridges/structures. Construction items associated with these 

subcategories are generally described below: 

 

 The road crossings subcategory includes public and private at-grade crossings, crossing 

signals and warning signs associated with the railroad. 

 The trackwork subcategory includes items such as track construction, turnouts, and 

signals. 

 The right-of way subcategory includes purchase of ROW for both rail and roadway; 

parcel surveys, appraisals, negotiations and closing costs; and relocation costs. 

 The earthwork subcategory includes clearing and grubbing, embankment, excavation, 

and stabilization. 

 The subballast subcategory assumes a 12-inch thick, 15-foot wide subballast. 

 The bridges/structures subcategory includes the four proposed railroad bridge 

structures, one of which consists of the GIWW crossing which is a movable bridge swing 

span option. 

Contingencies for each of these categories have been included as shown in Appendix D. In 

addition, estimated costs for environmental mitigation, final design, and construction 

management are included as a percentage of the overall rail infrastructure estimate. 

In addition to the trackwork/sidings within the Hero Yard, contingency costs would provide for 

the installation of ancillary facilities such as an interior access road and fencing around Hero 

Yard. 

Roadway reconstruction costs for the proposed Peters Road improvements have also been 

included in the estimate of probable cost. Between Lapalco Boulevard to just south of the 

Murphy Canal, the estimated length is approximately 8,700 feet or 1.65 miles. LADOTD 

planning-level unit costs ($2014) for new roadway construction for a 2-lane rural roadway were 

utilized. Per LADOTD guidance (LADOTD 2014), a unit cost of $3.5 million per mile was used. A 

20 percent contingency was applied to the roadway construction unit cost to account for 

drainage, utility relocations and other unknowns. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-51

While the Preferred Alternative uses existing rail right-of-way along the Hooper Road Spur, 

right-of-way acquisition would be necessary to implement the proposed improvements on new 

alignment. Using available GIS parcel data, an average assessed value was determined for all 

parcels. The developed parcels had an average assessed value of approximately $108,900 per 

acre. 

The estimate of probable cost is shown in Table 2-11, which is estimated to be approximately 

$267 million for the entire Project, which includes $260 million for the Preferred Alternative 

and $7 million for the reconstruction of Peters Road. Details of quantities and unit prices are 

included in Appendix D. 

Annual maintenance costs were not estimated for the Project. Annual maintenance costs would 

be borne by the NOGC Railway for both the rail infrastructure physical plant and the GIWW 

moveable bridge. Maintenance costs would typically include such items as tie replacement, rail 

reconditioning, structure maintenance, repainting and other typical maintenance items. 

It should be noted that the estimated maintenance cost for a swing span movable bridge similar 

to that proposed for the GIWW crossing could range from $100,000 to $200,000, annually.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 2-52

Table 2-11. Estimate of Probable Cost 

Category Estimated Cost

Road Crossings $8,930,400

Trackwork and Signals $52,687,293

Right-of-way $19,956,240

Earthwork $7,342,799

Subballast $4,274,417

Structures and Bridges $151,915,200

Subtotal Rail 1 $245,106,349

Environmental Mitigation (1 percent) $2,451,063

Final Design (3 percent) $7,353,190

Construction Management (2 percent) $4,902,127

Subtotal Rail 2 $14,706,381

Total Rail (estimated) $259,812,730

Total Rail (rounded) $260,000,000

Peters Road Reconstruction (estimated) $6,930,000

Peters Road Reconstruction (rounded) $7,000,000

Total Estimate of Probable Cost $267,000,000

Funding for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Project has not been 

identified at this point and would need to be secured from some combination of Federal, state, 

local, or private funding sources. A brief discussion on potential funding and financing sources is 

provided in Chapter 5 of this EA. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-1 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Chapter 3 describes the affected environment (existing conditions) by resource category 

followed by a description of direct impacts for the No-Build Alternative and the Build 

Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Mitigation measures for anticipated Project impacts are also 

discussed. If FRA funding is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the future project 

sponsor to comply with the commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this chapter. 

Table 3-1 presents a summary of the direct impacts that are described in each section. The last 

section in Chapter 3 describes the secondary (indirect) and cumulative impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative. Data sources for resource maps in this chapter are provided in Section 9.3. 

Table 3-1. Summary of No-Build Alternative vs. Build Alternative Impacts 

Evaluation Criteria Units No-Build Alternative Build Alternative/

Preferred Alternative

Physical Environment Considerations

Route Length Miles 16 miles 9.3 miles (4th Street to LA 23 only)

Right-of-Way Acquisition Acres 0 acres 118 acres

New Bridge Crossings Number 0

4 located at Murphy Canal, Bayou 

Barataria/GIWW, Buccaneer Road,

and Bayou Barriere

Water Wells Impacted Number 0 4

Oil and Gas Wells Impacted Number 0 1

Natural Gas Pipeline Crossing Number 0 1

Human Environment Considerations

Future (2040) Train Volumes in the 

Study Area Description

Average 5 to 6 trains per day 

on the Westwego Subdivision 

and 3 trains per day on the 

Belle Chasse Subdivision

Up to 13 trains per day in the

Relocation Corridor; year 2040 

projection

Navigation Impacts Description Existing vertical lift bridge 

on the GIWW

New swing span bridge on the GIWW 

(new crossing location)

Flood Control Project Impacts Description No Impacts

Impacts to the Boomtown Floodwall 

and Mississippi River levee avoided 

because the relocated rail ROW 

>15 feet from the floodwall/levees

Public Health and Safety Description

High number of highway-rail 

public at-grade crossings 

(73 total)

Number of new highway-rail public 

at-grade crossings reduced 

significantly (6 total); traffic control 

devises proposed to improve 

visibility and safety at new crossings

Highway-Rail Public 

At-grade Crossings Number 73 6 new; 2 relocated

At-grade Private Crossings Number 46 90

Total At-grade Crossings Number 119 98 along Preferred Alt alignment; 97 

eliminated along existing alignment

Reduction in Study Area Wide 

Driver Delay Costs Yes/No No Yes

Parking and Access Description

Businesses on Peters Road 

continue to park in Hooper 

Spur ROW

Hooper Spur ROW parking would no 

longer be available

Residential Relocations Number 0 2

Business/Industrial Relocations Number 0 10
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-2 

Evaluation Criteria Units No-Build Alternative Build Alternative/

Preferred Alternative

Air Quality Impacts Description

Emissions from traffic 

slowdowns and idling through 

congested business and 

residential areas

Reduced traffic delay and idling 

would decrease criteria pollutant 

motor vehicle related emissions

Noise Impacts 

(without noise walls)

Description Existing noise levels would 

remain

Noise impacts on north, center, and 

southern segments of alignment

Number of 

Residential 

Units 

Impacted

Not quantified 107 (Moderate Noise Impacts) 

0 (Severe Noise Impacts)

Vibration Impacts Yes/No No No

Land Use and Zoning Description No Impacts Consistent with existing land use 

and zoning 

Disproportionate Environmental 

Justice Impacts Yes/No No No

Recreational Resource Impacts: 

4(f) and 6(f) Properties Number None impacted One 4(f) property; No 6(f) properties

Community Facility Impacts Description

Numerous facilities along 4th 

Street in Gretna and Belle 

Chasse Highway impacted by 

existing trains

Fewer community facilities are 

located along the more industrial 

Relocation Corridor

Cultural Resources Impacts Description No Impacts Adverse effect on the Hero 

Park/River Oaks Academy site

Visual Resources Description

Undeveloped, wooded area 

south of NAS JRB expected to 

become developed as the 

result of the proposed Peters 

Road Extension project

Rail relocation would not significantly 

change the aesthetics of the 

industrial Relocation Corridor

Natural Environment Considerations

Within the 100-Year Floodplain Yes/No Yes Yes

Within the Coastal Zone Yes/No Yes Yes

Coastal Zone Impacts Description No Impacts Compensatory mitigation would 

offset wetland impacts 

Wetlands Directly Impacted Acres 0 acres 53.2 acres

Prime Farmland Impacts Yes/No No No

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Impacts Description No Impacts

Undeveloped, wooded habitat near 

open water may contain suitable 

habitat for some species, but no 

direct or indirect impacts to Federal 

or state listed T/E species are 

expected to occur

Energy Resources Description

Higher fuel consumption due 

to 6-mile longer route, traffic 

delays in Gretna, numerous 

at-grade public road crossings, 

and Gouldsboro Yard 

switching operations 

Lower fuel consumption due to 6-

mile shorter, more efficient route 

with fewer at-grade public road 

crossings

Water Quality Impacts Description No Impacts No Impacts

Water Bodies and Waterways Description No Impacts Includes bridge crossings to avoid 

impacts to waterways

Contaminated Sites Description

No improvements to existing 

environmental conditions

would occur

Recognized environmental conditions 

(primarily contaminated soil) would 

be addressed and remediated
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-3 

3.1 Air Quality 

This section provides a description of current air quality standards, and an overview of the 

existing conditions and potential impacts to air quality that may result from the No-Build 

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. 

3.1.1 Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 – 7671q, as amended, authorizes the US Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the primary 

air pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, to protect the public health and welfare. The 

sources of air pollution expected from the Project include motor vehicle traffic and 

locomotives. The criteria pollutants assessed include nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide 

(CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate 

matter in two size ranges, one being smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and the other 

being particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). 

Nitrogen Oxides. When combustion temperatures are high, as in automobile engines, 

atmospheric nitrogen gas may combine with oxygen gas to form various oxides of nitrogen. Of 

these, nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the most significant air pollutants. This 

group of pollutants is generally referred to as nitrogen oxides or NOx. Nitric oxide is relatively 

harmless to humans but in the atmosphere quickly converts to NO2 by reacting with ozone. 

Nitrogen dioxide has been found to be a lung irritant and can lead to respiratory illnesses. 

Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas that is a product of 

incomplete combustion. CO is absorbed by the lungs and reacts with hemoglobin to reduce the 

oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. At low concentrations, CO has been shown to aggravate 

the symptoms of cardiovascular disease. It can cause headaches and nausea and, at sustained 

high concentration levels, can lead to coma and death. 

Ozone. Ozone (O3) is a strong oxidizer and an irritant that affects the lung tissues and 

respiratory functions. Exposure to ozone can impair the ability to perform physical exercise, can 

result in symptoms such as tightness in the chest, coughing, and wheezing, and can ultimately 

result in asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. In 2008 EPA lowered the O3 NAAQS to 75 parts 

per billion (ppb) and in 2015 lowered it further to 70 ppb. 

Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is colorless gas with direct toxicity as a respiratory irritant, and is also 

oxidized to form sulfur trioxide (SO3) which combines with water vapor in the atmosphere to 

form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) mist. The sulfuric acid mist reacts further with atmospheric ammonia 

to produce small ammonium sulfate particles. Besides contributing to atmospheric haze, these 

particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory 

disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading 

to increased hospital admissions and premature death. In 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2

standards by establishing a new 1-hour standard at a level of 75 ppb. As the NAAQS 

attainment/nonattainment designations are being issued for this new standard in various parts 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-4 

of the country, EPA is revoking the two existing primary standards (24-hour and annual) 

because they would not provide additional public health protection given a 1-hour standard at 

75 ppb. Those standards are still presented in the existing conditions table (Table 3-2), as they 

have not been formally revoked in all parts of the country. 

Volatile Organic Compounds. VOCs are a general class of compounds containing hydrogen and 

carbon and are a precursor to the formation of ozone. While concentrations of VOCs in the 

atmosphere are not generally measured, emissions of VOCs are regulated to help prevent the 

formation of ground-level ozone, which is formed when emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) react in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is regulated as a regional pollutant and is 

typically not assessed on a microscale basis. 

Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is made up of small solid particles and liquid droplets. 

PM10 refers to particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or 

less, and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers 

or less. Particulates can enter the body through the respiratory system. Particulates over 10 

micrometers in size are generally captured in the nose and throat and are readily expelled from 

the body. Particles smaller than 10 micrometers, and especially particles smaller than 2.5 

micrometers, can reach the air ducts (bronchi) and the air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs. 

Particulates are associated with increased incidence of respiratory diseases, cardiopulmonary 

disease, and cancer. 

3.1.2 Existing Conditions Compared to NAAQS 

The NAAQS and existing monitoring conditions at New Orleans metro locations closest to the 

Relocation Corridor are presented in Table 3-2. The monitor data were taken from EPA’s 

national air quality monitoring database (www3.epa.gov/airdata/ accessed March 28, 2016). 

Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes are classified as attainment for all NAAQS criteria 

pollutants and have no general conformity determination obligations (LDEQ SOV response, June 

9, 2015). Therefore, the Study Area, which includes areas east of the Mississippi in Plaquemines 

and Jefferson Parishes, is in attainment with the NAAQS. 

The ambient monitoring data presented in Table 3-2 indicates that St. Bernard Parish, just 

across the Mississippi River, east of the Study Area, has been measuring 1-hour SO2

concentrations greater than the NAAQS. The EPA has thus designated St. Bernard Parish as a 

nonattainment area for the SO2 1-hour NAAQS. 

The proposed construction and operating area would not involve areas east of the Mississippi 

River (St. Bernard Parish). Furthermore, due to very stringent Federal fuel sulfur standards for 

gasoline and diesel fuel, SO2 emissions from highway vehicles and locomotives are extremely 

low, and therefore, such emissions would have no measurable effect on SO2 concentrations in 

the immediate project vicinity. Also, implementation of the Project would serve to slightly 

reduce urban-wide emissions of both locomotives and highway vehicles. Therefore, the project-
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-5 

related emissions would have no measurable effect on air quality in the nearby St. Bernard 

Parish SO2 non-attainment area.

Table 3-2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Existing Conditions 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period

Existing Monitor Values

NAAQS Monitor Site City, 

Units 2013 2014 2015 Average Parish

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM10)

24-hr1 ug/m3 52.0 53.0 65.0 56.7 150 New Orleans, 

Orleans

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM2.5)

Annual2 ug/m3 7.9 7.8 8.0 7.9 12

Marrero, Jefferson

24-hr3 ug/m3 18.0 17.0 21.0 18.7 35

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Annual2 ppb 6.43 6.70 6.29 6.5 53

Kenner, Jefferson

1-hr4 ppb 46 42 45 44.3 100

Ozone 8-hr5 ppm 0.066 0.071 0.068 0.068 0.07 Kenner, Jefferson

Carbon 

Monoxide

8-hr6 ppm 2.1 4.9 2.7 - 9 Baton Rouge, East 

1-hr6 ppm 1.8 1.3 2.3 - 35 Baton Rouge

Sulfur 

Dioxide

Annual7 ppb 4.30 3.87 2.88 - 30

Chalmette, 

St. Bernard 24-hr6 ppb 74.1 21.1 22.5 - 140

1-hr8 ppb 181 79 82 114 75

Notes: 

1. Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years 

2. Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 

3. 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 

4. 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

5. Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

6. Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

7. Annual arithmetic average 

8. 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Besides the SO2 nonattainment across the Mississippi River east of the Study Area, the only 

other pollutant approaching the NAAQS in the metropolitan area is ozone, measured on an 8-

hour basis. Ozone is produced by photochemical atmospheric reactions involving VOC and NOx, 

which are considered precursor emissions for ozone formation. Therefore, this impacts 

discussion below focuses on VOC and NOx emissions, as these are of greatest concern in the 

immediate project vicinity. 

Since 2008, coal demand in the United States has declined due to an increase in lower-cost 

natural gas, an increase in renewable energy resources (wind and solar energy), and 

environmental regulations. The NOGC Railway does not currently transport coal and there are 

no future plans to have it transport coal as a result of implementation of the Project, which is 

being driven by the need for safety improvements by minimizing at-grade public crossings. It is 

apparent that barge transport of coal is currently the preferred means of coal movement to the 

lower Mississippi River export terminals, for economic reasons. If any of the coal export 

facilities downriver ever want to receive coal by rail via the NOGC, any unloading and conveying 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-6 

facilities they would need to construct at the ports would be subject to potential permitting by 

the relevant state air and water regulatory agencies. 

While it does not appear likely that there would be demand for coal to be carried on the NOGC 

Railway, if that ever happened it is expected that fugitive coal dust emissions from rail cars 

would be minimal in the Study Area. When trains are loaded with coal at their origin, there can 

be significant coal dust emissions as the trains accelerate to cruising speeds of 50 to 60 

mph. After a short time at that speed, all exposed dust is eroded from the coal, and the fugitive 

dust emissions drop to very low levels. Furthermore, as trains slow down to lower speeds, such 

as the 20 mph maximum in the NOGC project corridor, there is no potential for significant 

additional fugitive dust emissions from open-top rail cars. 

No-Build Alternative – From south to north, the existing rail route follows the western edge of 

the Mississippi River upstream to Belle Chasse, then northeast along Belle Chasse Highway, and 

then north to the Gouldsboro Yard to turn around, as seen in Figure 1-1. The existing rail line 

contains numerous highway-rail at-grade roadway crossings creating traffic slowdowns and 

idling through congested business and residential areas, which increases emissions from both 

automobiles and locomotives. Future VOC and NOx emissions from this type of transportation 

system would typically be lower than the existing conditions emissions due to the 

establishment of state and Federal emission control programs, such as the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Emission Control Program, and Federal emissions standards for locomotives. These 

programs are tending to reduce NOx and VOC emissions from existing mobile source activity. 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative reroutes the rail line away from densely traveled 

and populated areas to a less traversed corridor along Peters Road. The new route would 

reduce traffic idling time and create fewer delays. Reduced traffic delay and idling would 

decrease criteria pollutant motor vehicle related emissions. The Preferred Alternative also 

shortens the rail route and would eliminate the necessity of a turn around at Gouldsboro Yard 

in Gretna, Louisiana. This relocation would decrease train operation time and fuel use, also 

tending to decrease emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon 

dioxide (CO2).

The Preferred Alternative would result in a reduction in VOC, NOx, PM, CO, and CO2 emissions, 

as compared to the No-Build Alternative. While these reductions are not expected to be large in 

the context of total emissions in the New Orleans metropolitan area, together with the 

emission reductions due to tighter emissions standards on new motor vehicles and 

locomotives, implementation of the Project would help to augment the ongoing trend toward 

lower urban area emissions. 

3.2 Water Quality 

The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387), as amended, was enacted to maintain and 

restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States. Under 

Clean Water Act Section 303(d), the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

develops and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews a list of Louisiana water 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-7 

bodies every two years that do not meet water quality standards for designated uses. These are 

“impaired” waters for which Total Maximum Daily Load standards are set to improve water 

quality. On July 21, 2015, the 2014 Louisiana Water Quality Inventory: Integrated Report 

(305(b)/303(d)) was approved by EPA with Integrated Report Category revisions on 43 subsegments. A segment of the GIWW within the Study Area that was listed on the Draft 2010 and 

2012 303(d) lists for fecal coliform and turbidity is not listed on the Final 2014 303(d) list or 

Draft 2016 303(d) lists. No other water bodies within the Study Area appear to be included on 

the 2014 303(d) list.12

The Study Area is adjacent to the Mississippi River, which receives numerous wastewater 

discharges and also drains over 40 percent of the continental United States. Due to the concern 

for the Louisiana citizens who depend on the river for their drinking water supply, the Early 

Warning Organic Compound Detection System was established in 1986. The Early Warning 

Organic Compound Detection System is a cooperative agreement between LDEQ, potable water 

works, and industries along the river to provide warnings of possible contamination and data 

concerning the river’s water quality and help deter unreported discharges or spills of organic 

waste into the river. The Mississippi River also carries elevated nutrient levels into the Gulf of 

Mexico which contributes to hypoxic conditions offshore. 

No-Build Alternative – Without the Project, existing water quality conditions would be expected 

to remain. 

Build Alternative – Construction of the Preferred Alternative is unlikely to result in adverse 

impacts to water quality within the Study Area, because Federal and state stormwater 

regulations require railroads and other industrial facilities to take steps to prevent stormwater 

pollution. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would need to be prepared as part of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). Localized water quality could be temporarily affected during 

construction, but use of BMPs would minimize potential water quality impacts. A Section 401 

Permit (Water Quality Certification) would be required from the LDEQ’s Office of Environmental 

Services prior to construction. 

3.3 Water Bodies and Waterways 

The largest waterways in the Study Area are the Mississippi River, the GIWW, and the Harvey 

Canal. The Study Area is bounded on both the northwest and southeast by the Mississippi River. 

The Relocation Corridor generally parallels the Harvey Canal and crosses Murphy Canal, Bayou 

Barataria, the GIWW, and Bayou Barriere from north to south. The Study Area also includes 

other smaller bayous, canals, and ditches. 

No-Build Alternative – Without the Project, no new impacts to water bodies or waterways 

would occur. 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative includes the construction of bridges to cross 

Murphy Canal, Bayou Barataria, the GIWW, and Bayou Barriere (see Appendix B, Sheets A-6, A-

 

12 http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/69/Default.aspx accessed on April 13, 2016 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-8 

7, A-8, and A-10 for these waterway crossing locations). The GIWW crossing requires a 

moveable bridge to avoid impacts to navigation. 

The US Coast Guard (USCG) administers Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and 

issues bridge permits over navigable waters. Based on coordination with the USCG, the GIWW 

crossing would require a USCG permit. A USCG permit would not be required for waterways 

that are not being used for navigation and have no potential for navigation such as Murphy 

Canal, Bayou Barataria, and Bayou Barriere; however, a formal determination of nonnavigability from the USCG would be obtained for these waterways at the time of the permit 

application. 

Section 3.4 (Navigation) provides additional information on the existing and proposed GIWW 

moveable bridge. 

3.4 Navigation 

The NOGC Railway currently crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) parallel to the 

LA 23 - Belle Chasse Highway Judge Perez Bridge. Both the NOGC Railway bridge and the Judge 

Perez Bridge are vertical lift bridges. The NOGC Railway bridge remains in the raised position 

unless a train is approaching and provides five feet of vertical clearance above mean high water 

when closed and 102 feet of vertical clearance when open. The Judge Perez Bridge provides 40 

feet of vertical clearance above mean high water when closed and 100 feet of vertical clearance 

when open. Each bridge provides 125 feet of horizontal clearance. The Judge Perez Bridge is 

operated by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD), while 

the NOGC rail bridge is operated by NOGC employees. 

Between 2012 and 2014, the bridge pair averaged seven openings per day or almost 5,200 per 

year. The average height of vessels (which required an opening) passing under the bridge was 

47.3 feet with the average maximum height of 83 feet. Marine traffic remained fairly static 

throughout those years despite industrial or seasonal variability. The greatest impacts to 

maritime traffic during the period studied was due to tropical storm and hurricane activity at or 

near the Louisiana Gulf Coast. 

For more details, refer to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) Marine Vessel Traffic 

Analysis report13 referenced in Section 8.1. 

No-Build Alternative – If no improvements are made, maritime traffic would continue to 

navigate the GIWW under existing conditions. Currently, LADOTD and RPC are completing an 

environmental assessment (EA) for replacing the LA 23/Belle Chasse Highway Judge Perez 

Bridge. All build alternatives for that EA currently feature a 73-foot vertical clearance, but the 

construction of any replacement depends on the results of that EA and funding availability. 

 

13 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-9 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative includes construction of a new swing span bridge 

where the Preferred Alternative crosses the GIWW (see Appendix B, Sheets C-1 and C-2). The 

proposed rail bridge would be designed to minimize impacts to maritime navigation. The 

existing NOGC rail bridge parallel to the LA 23/Belle Chasse Highway Judge Perez Bridge would 

no longer be used and would likely be removed; removal of the existing bridge is not part of the 

Project. 

If the Preferred Alternative is constructed, maritime traffic would largely continue to navigate 

the GIWW under existing conditions. Under proposed operating conditions, the new swing span 

rail bridge would remain open by default. It would only close by request of the railroad to allow 

a train to cross the GIWW and would reopen after the train passes. The LA 23/Belle Chasse 

Highway Judge Perez Bridge, and the Preferred Alternative GIWW swing span bridge when 

closed, would remain impediments to maritime vessels on the GIWW. Based on discussions 

with the USCG and the navigation industry, 150 feet appears to be the current minimum 

horizontal clearance which the USCG will consider on the GIWW. 

3.5 Floodplains and Flood Zones 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to avoid to the 

extent possible, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps as a 

part of the National Flood Insurance Program which designate the Special Flood Hazard Area in 

land areas covered by the floodwaters of the 1 percent annual chance flood, or “100-year” 

flood. The Study Area contains areas within designated 100-year floodplains. Areas range from 

lower risk (X zones) to higher risk (AE zones) as shown on Figure 3-1. 

No-Build Alternative – The existing NOGC Railway would continue to operate in the 100-year 

floodplain having various flood zone risk levels as shown on Figure 3-1. 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative alignment would be constructed and operated 

within the 100-year floodplain having flood zone risk levels (low to high) as shown on 

Figure 3-1. Potential impacts to floodplains based on the Preferred Alternative alignment 

include filling, grading, new bridges and culverts, and other activities. 

Impacts to the 100-year floodplain typically require coordination and approval from the local 

floodplain administrator(s) and FEMA. The local entities with review and/or approval authority 

in the Relocation Corridor include Jefferson Parish, Plaquemines Parish, and FEMA. During the 

permitting process, the floodplain administrators will be contacted for the review and possible 

permit requirements for the Project. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-10

Figure 3-1. Flood Zones Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-11

3.6 Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires Federal agencies to avoid to the 

extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in 

wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The northern portion of the Study Area 

and Relocation Corridor above the GIWW is mostly urban and wetland areas are therefore 

limited. The southern portion of the Study Area and Relocation Corridor below the GIWW 

contains extensive wetlands. Undeveloped portions of the Study Area contain various types of 

freshwater wetlands (e.g., forested/shrub, pond, emergent) with a range of hydrologic 

conditions (e.g. permanent to seasonal inundation/saturation). Figure 3-2 displays potential 

wetland areas by type based on USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a Federal program to regulate the discharge of 

dredge and fill material into waters of the United States. The US Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) has the primary regulatory authority for issuing permits and enforcing Section 404 

requirements. The USACE also issues permits and enforces Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §403, for navigable waters of the United States to protect 

commercial navigation. 

No-Build Alternative – No direct or indirect wetland impacts would occur if the Project is not 

constructed. 

Build Alternative – A query of NWI data was performed to identify waters of the United States, 

including wetlands potentially impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Table 3-3 lists wetland 

impacts and type. The riverine impacts are at Bayou Barataria and the GIWW. The other 

impacts are all located south of the GIWW. 

Table 3-3. Potential Wetland Impacts by Type 

Wetland Type No. of Acres 

Impacted

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 52.3

Freshwater Pond 0.1

Riverine 0.8

Total Wetland Impacts 53.2

Prior to permitting and design activities, the future project sponsor would be required to 

conduct an on-site field investigation to delineate the full extent of waters of the United States 

within the area and to make a proposed jurisdictional determination. The USACE would make 

the final jurisdictional determination for waters of the United States for the Preferred 

Alternative. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-12

Figure 3-2. USFWS NWI Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-13

Fill within waters of the United States, including wetlands, associated with construction of the 

Preferred Alternative would likely require authorization by an Individual Permit under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344). Authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act 33 (33 U.S.C. §403) would also be required for activities in navigable waters of the 

United States (such as the GIWW). 

Impacts to waters of the United States would require mitigation to compensate for adverse 

effects in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). 

Purchasing credits from an approved mitigation bank is the USACE-preferred method of 

mitigation, based on the latest joint USACE and USEPA guidance, and is often lower in cost and 

risk, and has a shorten implementation time compared to permittee-responsible mitigation 

(e.g., on-site wetland restoration). The web-based RIBITS (Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank 

Information Tracking System) at https://ribits.usace.army.mil provides information on 

mitigation and conservation banking and in-lieu fee programs across the country.

14 RIBITS 

allows users to access information on the types and numbers of mitigation and conservation 

bank and in-lieu fee program sites, associated documents, mitigation credit availability, service 

areas, as well information on national and local policies and procedures that affect mitigation 

and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program development and operation. The number of 

operating mitigation banks and availability of credits may change depending on the length of 

time until permit evaluation for the Project. 

3.7 Coastal Zones 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 – 1464, declares a national policy 

to preserve, protect, and develop, and where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the 

Nation’s coastal zone. The Study Area lies within the Louisiana Coastal Zone as designated by 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Office of Coastal Management (OCM). 

Under the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, the OCM of 

LDNR is charged with implementing the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP). The OCM 

administers the Coastal Use Permit (CUP) program to ensure activities in the Coastal Zone are 

performed in accordance with the guidelines in the LCRP. The CUP program specifically focuses 

on activities that may increase the loss of wetlands and aquatic resources. The LCRP requires 

compensatory mitigation for impacts to vegetated wetlands in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. 

No-Build Alternative – No direct or indirect impacts to the Coastal Zone would occur if the 

Project is not constructed. 

Build Alternative – Since the Project is located in the coastal zone and could impact 

approximately 53 acres of wetlands, the future project sponsor would be required to obtain a 

Coastal Use Permit/Section 404 Permit with compensatory mitigation. Compensatory 

mitigation would be determined during the permitting process. A Joint Permit Application 

 

14 https://ribits.usace.army.mil accessed on April 13, 2016.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-14

would be required from the OCM and USACE for the CUP and the USACE permits under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

3.8 Soils and Prime Farmland 

Recognizing that millions of acres per year of prime farmland are lost to development, Congress 

passed the Farmland Protection Policy Act to minimize the extent to which Federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland (7 CFR Part 658). Prime farmland is 

described as soils that have a combination of soil and landscape properties that make them 

highly suitable for cropland, such as high inherent fertility, good water-holding capacity, and 

deep or thick effective rooting zones, and that are not subject to periodic flooding. 

The majority of soil deposits across south Louisiana are categorized as alluvium, which indicates 

they were deposited by rivers. Alluvium comes in a variety of soil textures from sandy and silty 

to heavy clays, depending on the source of the sediment. Areas laid down as alluvium typically 

have flat, deep soils, often with considerable organic matter content that became mixed into 

the soil as it travelled down the river system. Table 3-4 identifies by soil type those soils within 

the required right-of-way, which includes the rail and road rights-of-way and remnant parcels. 

As noted in the table, soils within the categories Cancienne (CM/CO), Carville (Ct) and Shriever 

(Sk) fall within categories considered prime farmlands. However, as noted in the discussion that 

follows, their location within the boundary of the New Orleans Urbanized Area exempts them 

from the rules and regulations of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. 

Table 3-4. Preferred Alternative Right-of-Way Soils

Soil Type Map Unit 

Symbol Acres Percent of Right-of-Way

Prime 

Farmland 

Soil Type

Aquents, dredged AN 1.6 1.3% No

Cancienne silt loam, 0-1% slopes Cm 5.3 4% Yes

Cancienne silty clay loam, 0-1% slopes Co 9.5 7.7% Yes

Carville silt loam Ct 0.7 0.5% Yes

Rita mucky clay Ra 53.3 43.2% No

Shriever clay, 0-1% slopes Sk 2.5 2.1% Yes

Water W 0.9 0.8% No

Westwego clay, 0-0.5% slopes Ww 49.7 40.2% No

Total 123.5 100%

Source: USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (or SSURGO). 

No-Build Alternative – If no improvements are made, soils in the right-of-way would not be 

disturbed by a rail construction process and would remain as under existing conditions. 

Build Alternative – Although many of the soil types in the right-of-way would be conducive to 

farming in rural areas, the vast majority of the Relocation Corridor is built out with industrial, 

commercial, and residential land uses. According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Soil 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-15

Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) data, the acres of Cancienne (Cm) impacted by the build 

alternative are along the Harvey Canal between 4th Street and Lapalco Boulevard, a fully 

developed industrial area adjacent to the Harvey Canal. There remain few, if any, unaltered 

acres which would be suitable for farming. This same SSURGO data indicates that the Shriever 

(Sk) soils and Cancienne (CO) soils occur in an area between Cedar Drive and River Oaks Drive, 

northwest of LA 23. This area is currently vacant, but aerial photography indicates the location 

bears the scars of a previous activity which appears shielded from adjacent residential areas by 

existing overgrown vegetation and trees. The area surrounding this site has a development 

pattern typical of the suburban development occurring on the edges of the Belle Chasse. 

Parcels along LA 23 which fall against the fence line of the NAS/JRB base, which were once in 

cultivation, now house a combination of residential, industrial and commercial land uses. Given 

the density and types of development in these areas, return of the land to farming or 

agricultural activities remains unlikely. 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not categorize prime farmland soils as such if 

they are located within a US Census urban area boundary. An overlay of the areas classified as 

urban in the 2010 US Census on the Preferred Alternative ROW indicated that less than 1 acre 

of ROW could be considered prime farmland. The US Department of Agriculture also indicated 

that proposed construction areas associated with the Preferred Alternative are within urban 

areas and are therefore exempt from the rules and regulations of the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act (USDA SOV response, May 12, 2015). 

If the Preferred Alternative is constructed, soils in the right-of-way would be disturbed and built 

up with a variety of fill. While these soils would be impacted during the construction process, 

the overall impact would be minimal considering these soils have already been heavily altered 

by previous man-made construction, especially north of the GIWW. The Preferred Alternative 

has no impacts on prime farmlands. 

3.9 Noise and Vibration 

Noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the Project are subject to 

review by the FRA. FRA has noise and vibration impact assessment methods (FRA 2012). These 

methodologies are appropriate to evaluate noise and vibration from trains that travel at speeds 

of 90 mph or higher. For train speeds lower than 90 mph, FRA endorses use of noise and 

vibration impact assessment methodologies published by the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA 2006). Train speeds proposed for the Project are lower than 90 mph, therefore projectrelated noise and vibration were evaluated using FTA methods. Both FTA and FRA noise and 

vibration impact assessment methods are intended for use with passenger trains. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-16

3.9.1 Noise 

Noise Overview 

Noise is unwanted or undesirable sound. Sound travels through the air as waves of tiny air 

pressure fluctuations caused by vibration. The intensity or loudness of a sound is determined by 

how much the sound pressure fluctuates. 

Loudness of a sound depends on the amplitude of the fluctuations above and below 

atmospheric pressure associated with a particular sound wave. The mean value of the 

alternating positive and negative pressure fluctuations is the static atmospheric pressure, not a 

useful descriptor of sound. However, the effective magnitude of the sound pressure in a sound 

wave can be expressed by the “root-mean-square” (rms) of the oscillating pressure measured in 

Pascals, a unit named after Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician. In calculation of 

the ‘rms’, the values of sound pressure are squared to make them all positive and timeaveraged to smooth out variations. The ‘rms’ pressure is the square root of this time-averaged 

value. 

The quietest sound that can be heard by most humans, the “threshold of hearing," is a sound 

pressure of about 20 microPascals, and the loudest sounds typically found in our environment 

range up to 20 million microPascals. Because of the difficulty in dealing with such an extreme 

range of numbers, acousticians use a compressed scale based on logarithms of the ratios of the 

sound energy contained in the wave related to the square of sound pressures instead of the 

sound pressures themselves, resulting in the “sound pressure level” in decibels (dB). The ‘B’ in 

dB is always capitalized because the unit is named after Alexander Graham Bell, a leading 19th 

century innovator in communication. Sound pressure level (Lp) is defined as: 

Lp = 10 log10 (p2rms / p2ref ) = 20 log10 (prms / pref ) dB, 

where pref = 20 microPascals 

Inserting the range of sound pressure values mentioned above results in the threshold of 

hearing at 20 microPascals at 0 dB and a typical loudest sound of 20 million microPascals at 120 

dB” (FTA 2006). Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, when two identical noise 

sources are added together, the resulting increase is 3 dB (not the arithmetic sum of the two 

noise levels). Most sounds consist of a broad range of sound frequencies, from low frequencies 

to high frequencies. The average human ear does not perceive all frequencies equally. 

Therefore, the A-weighting scale was developed to approximate the way the human ear 

responds to sound levels; it mathematically applies less “weight” to frequencies we do not hear 

well, and applies more “weight” to frequencies we do hear well. Typical A-weighted noise levels 

for various types of sound sources are summarized in Figure 3-3. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-17

Figure 3-3. Typical Noise Levels 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) 

Noise Descriptors 

The equivalent average sound level (Leq) is often used to describe sound levels that vary over 

time, usually a one-hour period. It is a mean energy-based average noise level. The Leq is often 

described as the constant sound level that is an equivalent exposure level to the actual timevarying sound level over the period (hour). Using twenty-four consecutive 1 hour Leq values, it 

is possible to calculate daily cumulative noise exposure. A common community noise rating is 

the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn). The Ldn is the 24-hour Leq but includes a 10 

dBA penalty on noise that occurs during the nighttime hours (between 10 pm. and 7 am.) 

where sleep interference might be an issue. The 10 dBA penalty makes the Ldn useful when 

assessing noise in residential areas, or land-uses where overnight sleep occurs. 

Noise Screening Assessment 

The first step in the noise analysis is a screening assessment. The purpose of the screening 

assessment is to determine if noise-sensitive land uses exist close enough to the proposed rail 

line to be affected by project-related noise. If noise-sensitive land uses exist within the 

screening distance, they are evaluated for potential noise effects. The Project includes only 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-18

freight trains, therefore the noise screening distances from the CREATE (Chicago Regional 

Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) program were used (CREATE 2013). The CREATE 

distances were selected because they were developed for use on freight trains. They also 

provide guidance on how to tailor the screening distances to an individual project, which results 

in a more meaningful and contextual screening process. Use of CREATE noise screening 

distances for this EA was approved by FRA. 

The first step in the CREATE noise screening process is to determine the train activity category 

(low, medium, high). The Project proposes to operate less than 40 trains per day, which is 

considered low train activity according to CREATE. The next step is to identify the ambient land 

use conditions (normal suburban, urban residential, and noisy urban residential). Land use in 

the Relocation Corridor includes residential, industrial/light industrial, and open spaces. Based 

on the density of residential development (the only noise-sensitive land use in the Relocation 

Corridor), the portion of the Relocation Corridor that is noise-sensitive was classified as urban 

residential for the purposes of the noise screening assessment. Using these two pieces of 

information, the noise screening distance was determined to be 300 feet. This screening 

distance corresponds to urban residential, low freight train activity, and a setting that does not 

include rows of intervening buildings or obstructions. 

Noise-sensitive land uses were identified within 300 feet in three portions of the Relocation 

Corridor. In the northern-most section of the Relocation Corridor where the proposed track 

connects with the existing track on 4th Street, there are homes within 300 feet of the proposed 

rail line. In the center of the Relocation Corridor, where the proposed alignment jogs eastward 

to cross Murphy Canal, there is a mobile home park (Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park) on the west 

side and a residential neighborhood (Village Green) on the east side of the alignment. In the 

southern-most section of the Relocation Corridor, there is a row of homes on River Oaks Drive 

that is roughly parallel with the proposed alignment. Therefore, noise analyses were performed 

to evaluate the potential for noise effects in these three areas. The FTA’s General Noise 

Assessment spreadsheet model was used in these analyses. 

Existing Noise Levels within the Relocation Corridor 

The first step in the FTA’s General Noise Assessment is to identify existing noise levels. Existing 

noise levels were determined using methods published by the FTA (FTA 2006). Table 5-7 in 

FTA’s guidance document (FTA 2006) shows how to estimate existing noise levels based on a

variety of factors including population density. This analysis estimated noise levels using census 

block data. The cluster of homes in the northern-most portion of the Relocation Corridor 

consists of more than one census block. This resulted in a range of existing noise levels. The 

lowest noise level was selected and that corresponds to a lower allowable project-related noise 

level.

The mobile home park and residential neighborhood in the middle of the Relocation Corridor lie 

within two different census blocks. Therefore each area was assigned a unique existing noise 

level based on census block data. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-19

The row of residences on River Oaks Drive in the southern portion of the Relocation Corridor is 

located within the 2011 aviation noise contours associated with the runways at Naval Air 

Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans (NAS JRB). A comparison between existing noise levels 

determined using census block data and the aviation noise contours showed that the aviation 

noise contours are dramatically louder than population-based estimates of existing noise. 

Therefore, the aviation noise contours were used to represent existing noise levels in that row 

of residences in the southern portion of the Relocation Corridor. Those aviation noise contours 

have not been updated since 2011, but are considered to still be valid for the purposes of this 

analysis. 

Table 3-5 presents the estimates of existing noise levels (on an Ldn basis) determined for the 

areas for which a General Noise Assessment is being performed. 

Table 3-5. Existing Day-Night Noise Levels (Ldn) 

Residential Area Ldn (dBA)

Northern-most near 4th Street 50

Central (east side) near Village Green 55

Central (west side) near Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park 60

Southern-most along River Oaks Drive 65

Source: HDR 2017 

Existing noise levels shown in the table above were used in the FTA General Noise Assessment 

spreadsheet model. These exiting noise levels would be associated with the No-Build 

Alternative. The model was used to calculate the distance from the proposed rail line to a point 

where moderate and severe noise impacts (as defined by FTA) no longer occurred. 

General Noise Assessment – Potential Preferred Alternative Impacts 

Table 3-6 shows the input parameters used with the FTA General Noise Assessment 

spreadsheet model. This analysis assumed that freight trains were evenly distributed 

throughout a 24-hour period, resulting in the same number of trains/hour during daytime and 

nighttime hours. This analysis also conservatively assumed that there are no rows of 

intervening buildings.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-20

Table 3-6. General Noise Assessment 

Input Parameter Value

Existing Noise level (Ldn) 50, 55, 60, 65

Number of locomotives per train 2

Speed (mph) 10

Average number of events per hour 0.542

Average number of rail cars/train 110

Source: HDR and NOGC 2017 

The FTA General Noise Assessment spreadsheet model calculates train noise at a fixed distance. 

It also calculates the distance to Moderate and Severe noise impact contours. Using that 

feature, noise impact contours were plotted in each of the three portions of the Relocation 

Corridor where noise-sensitive land uses were located within the noise screening distances. 

Using GIS and aerial photographs, noise impacts were identified where residences were located 

inside the noise impact contours. 

Note that in the center portion of the Relocation Corridor, different existing noise levels on 

either side of the Preferred Alternative alignment resulted in different distances to the noise 

impact thresholds. The noise impact contours were plotted in each area, and the number of 

residences inside those contours was counted (the number of noise impacts was determined). 

FTA spreadsheet models are included in Appendix E. 

Readers and reviewers are reminded that the General Noise Assessment spreadsheet models 

were only used to calculate the distance to the noise impact thresholds. Noise modeling results 

shown in Appendix E do not reflect the distances to any specific noise-sensitive land uses 

(however the distance to the noise impact contours are correct and were utilized in this 

analysis). 

This analysis assumes that a quiet zone would be built in the northern-most portion of the 

Relocation Corridor, where the Project proposes to cross 4th Street and St. Joseph Lane. 

Therefore locomotive horn noise was not modeled in that area.

Table 3-7 shows the results of the impact determinations. Based on the FTA General Noise 

Assessment methodology, the Project would have 107 moderate noise impacts and no severe 

noise impacts. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-21

Table 3-7. Noise Impact Summary 

Location Moderate Noise Impacts Severe Noise Impacts

Northern terminus 53 0

Central (east side) 3 0

Central (west side) 49 0

Southern end of corridor 2 0

Total Noise Impacts 107 0

Source: HDR 2017 

If the Project is built, it would relocate a portion of existing freight trains from the existing 

alignment, which travels through densely developed residential neighborhoods in Gretna. 

Reducing freight train activity in residential areas is a net benefit attributable to the Preferred 

Alternative. The number of residences experiencing train noise and vibration would decrease. 

These benefits have not been quantified, but they will occur if the Project is constructed. 

Noise Mitigation 

FTA/FRA guidance does not require noise mitigation for moderate noise impacts; however, 

strategies for reduction of noise impacts (e.g. noise walls, wheel truthing, etc.) may be 

implemented during final design if determined to be cost effective. 

3.9.2 Vibration 

This section describes basic vibration concepts and descriptors, and presents the assessment of 

project-related vibration for the Preferred Alternative. 

Vibration Descriptors 

Vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions. However, human response to vibration is a 

function of the average motion over a longer (but still short) time, such as one second. The root 

mean square (RMS) amplitude of a motion over a one-second period is commonly used to 

predict human response to vibration. For convenience, decibel notation is used to describe 

vibration relative to a reference quantity. The FTA has adopted the notation VdB (for vibration 

decibels), which indicates decibels relative to a reference quantity of one microinch per second 

(10−6 in/s).

Ground-borne vibration (GBV) can be a serious concern for residents or at facilities that are 

vibration-sensitive, such as laboratories or recording studios (however neither of these land 

uses exist within the Relocation Corridor). The effects of ground-borne vibration include 

perceptible movement of building floors, interference with vibration-sensitive instruments, 

rattling of windows, and the shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. Additionally GBV 

can cause the vibration of room surfaces resulting in ground-borne noise (GBN). Ground-borne 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-22

noise is typically perceived as a low frequency rumbling sound. Figure 3-4 illustrates common 

vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. 

Figure 3-4. Example Vibration Velocity Levels 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, September 2012. DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. 

In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise is not an 

everyday experience for most people. The background vibration level in residential areas is 

usually 50 VdB or lower—well below the threshold of perception for humans, which is around 

65 VdB. Levels at which vibration interferes with sensitive instrumentation can be much lower 

than the threshold of human perception, such as for medical imaging equipment or extremely 

high-precision manufacturing. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within a 

building such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of 

doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction 

equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, though in most soils GBV 

dissipates very rapidly and it’s not a common environmental concern. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-23

Vibration Screening Assessment – Potential Preferred Alternative Impacts 

The first step in the evaluation of project-related vibration is the screening assessment. FTA 

classifies vibration-sensitive land uses into three categories. 

 Vibration Category 1 - High Sensitivity: where vibration would interfere with operations 

within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with 

human annoyance, such as electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic 

equipment and magnetic resonance imaging devices. 

 Vibration Category 2 – Residential: where people sleep, such as homes, hotels, and 

hospitals. 

 Vibration Category 3 – Institutional: where vibration has potential to interfere with 

activities within the building, but there are not particularly vibration-sensitive 

equipment present, such as schools, places of worship, quiet offices, and other 

institutions. 

Based on a review of the Relocation Corridor, the vibration-sensitive land uses in the Relocation 

Corridor are all residences (Category 2 land use according to the FTA Vibration Assessment 

Methodology). Table 3-8 shows the FTA vibration screening distances. For this study, the 

conventional commuter railroad was used to represent project-related trains (both types of 

train utilize diesel-electric locomotives). 

Table 3-8. FTA Vibration Screening Distances 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) 

This analysis utilized a vibration screening distance of 200 feet. A contour line was plotted at 

200 feet from the proposed alignment. Residences were identified inside that contour distance 

in the same three areas where noise-sensitive land uses were identified inside the noise 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-24

screening contours. Therefore a General Vibration Assessment was performed using FTA 

guidelines. 

General Vibration Assessment – Potential Preferred Alternative Impacts 

Using FTA methods, a General Vibration Assessment was performed to evaluate project-related 

vibration levels and the potential for ground-borne vibration impacts as defined by FTA. FTA 

vibration impact thresholds are based on the sensitivity of the receiving land use, and also on 

the frequency of vibration events (train pass-byes). FTA provides guidance on applying the 

vibration impact criteria for freight trains. Locomotives are heavier than rail cars, yet there are 

fewer of them per train. So FTA recommends use of the few event criterion to evaluate 

vibration from locomotives. Similarly, there are many rail cars in a modern long-haul freight 

train. So FTA recommends use of the frequent event vibration criterion to evaluate vibration 

from rail cars. Use of the frequent event criterion results in a larger vibration impact contour 

distance. Therefore this analysis conservatively focused on that criterion. Table 3-9 presents 

the data used, standard FTA adjustments applied, and results of the General Vibration 

Assessment performed for this analysis. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-25

Table 3-9. General Vibration Assessment Summary 

Receptors

FTA Vibration Land Use Category

Peak Day Predicted Build Volumes

Average Track Speed (mph)

Vibration Frequency event

FTA Vibration Impact Criterion (VdB)

Adjustments to Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curve

Find distance to 

Source impact

Adjustments Path Adjustments Receiver Adjustments

Total Adjustments (VdB)

Speed Adjustment

(VdB)

Track Conditions 

Adjustment (VdB)

Propagation Geology 

Adjustment (VdB)

1-2 Story Masonry 

Structure (VdB)

Wood Frame Structure 

(VdB)

1-5 Floors Above Grade 

(VdB)

Floor Amplification (VdB)

Adjusted vibration impact 

criterion

(VdB)

Distance to adjusted 

criterion (feet)

Buildings where 

vibration would 

interfere with 

interior 

operations

1 13 20 frequent 65 -8.0 NA 0 -7 NA NA NA -15.0 80.0 85

Single-family 

residences 2 13 20 frequent 72 -8.0 NA 0 NA -5 -2 6 -9.0 81.0 75

Multi-family 

residences 2 13 20 frequent 72 -8.0 NA 0 -7 NA -2 6 -11.0 83.0 60

Multi-family 

residences 

above groundfloor 

commercial 

shops 

(assuming 

basements are 

present)

2 13 20 frequent 72 -8.0 NA 0 NA NA -4 6 -16.0 88.0 30

Institutional 

land uses with 

primarily 

daytime use

3 13 20 frequent 75 -8.0 NA 0 -7 NA NA NA -15.0 90.0 25

Theaters and 

Auditoria

1/

Special 13 20 frequent 72 -8.0 NA 0 -7 NA NA NA -15.0 87.0 35

Source: HDR 2017 

Results of the General Vibration Assessment show that vibration impacts are expected to occur 

between the rail line and a maximum distance of approximately 85 feet from the rail line. The 

vibration impact threshold for residences extends out to 75 feet, and analysis results indicate 

that vibration impacts are not projected to occur from trains traveling in the Relocation 

Corridor because no residences are located within 75 feet of the proposed track. Table 3-10

shows the General Vibration Assessment for areas with special track work (i.e., crossovers, 

turn-outs). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-26

Table 3-10. Vibration Levels Due to Special Trackwork 

Receptors

FTA Vibration Land Use Category

Peak Day Predicted Build Volumes

Average Track Speed (mph)

Vibration Frequency event

FTA Vibration Impact Criterion (VdB)

Adjustments to Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curve

Find distance to 

impact using 

generalized 

vibration curve: 

Rapid Transit or 

Light Rail 

Vehicle 

Source 

Adjustments Path Adjustments Receiver Adjustments

Total Adjustments (VdB)

Speed Adjustment

(VdB)

Track Conditions 

Adjustment (VdB)

Propagation Geology 

Adjustment (VdB)

1-2 Story Masonry 

Structure (VdB)

Wood Frame Structure 

(VdB)

1-5 Floors Above Grade 

(VdB)

Floor Amplification 

(VdB)

Adjusted vibration 

impact criterion

(VdB)

Distance to adjusted 

criterion (feet)

Buildings 

where 

vibration would 

interfere with 

interior 

operations

1 13 20 frequent 65 -8.0 0 10 -7 NA NA NA -5.0 70.0 230

Single-family 

residences 2 13 20 frequent 72 -8.0 0 10 NA -5 -2 6 1.0 71.0 210

Multi-family 

residences 2 13 20 frequent 72 -8.0 0 10 -7 NA -2 6 -1.0 73.0 170

Institutional 

land uses with 

primarily 

daytime use

3 13 20 frequent 75 -8.0 0 10 -7 NA NA NA -5.0 80.0 85

Source: HDR 2017 

Results of this General Vibration Assessment show that vibration impacts are expected to occur 

at single family residences if they are between the rail line and distances 210 feet from the rail 

line. Analysis results show that there are no residences within that distance. 

Analysis results also show that the farthest vibration impact distance of 230 feet is associated 

with land uses where vibration will interfere with interior operations. A review of land use in 

the Relocation Corridor did not find any vibration-sensitive land uses within 230 feet. 

Therefore, analysis results indicate that vibration impacts are not expected to occur under the 

Build Alternative. 

Vibration Mitigation

Vibration mitigation measures are unnecessary for this Project due to a lack of vibration 

impacts. Even if there were vibration impacts, there would be no practical way of mitigating 

those impacts for this type of freight rail project. The FTA and FRA guidance documents both 

discuss vibration mitigation measures that are effective in mitigating vibration from passenger 

trains and other forms of public transit. Those mitigation measures are not effective on freight 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-27

trains, because the vehicles are so much heavier than vehicles used in passenger/transit 

services. There is no practical way to mitigate ground-borne vibration due to freight trains. 

3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat 

Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed 

Endangered, and Proposed Threatened species are protected under the Endangered Species 

Act (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for consultations and incidental take 

permitting under the Endangered Species Act. Protection is also afforded to Louisiana statelisted species, and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) enforces the state 

regulations (LA Rev Stat § 56:1904 (2016)). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq., 50 CFR Part 600) regulates the management of 

marine fish stocks (essential fish habitat). 

A desktop review of the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation online database, the 

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program online rare animal and plant species database, and prior 

environmental studies was conducted to determine if there are likely to be any federally and 

state protected endangered and threatened species or any designated critical habitat within 

the Study Area. Table 3-11 provides a summary of the threatened and endangered species with 

the potential to occur in the Study Area based on the parish lists of rare species issued by the 

USFWS and LDWF’s Natural Heritage Program. The desktop review did not identify any wildlife 

refuges, critical habitats, or fish hatcheries in the Study Area. Inclusion in Table 3-11 does not 

imply that a species will occur within the Study Area, but acknowledges only the potential for 

occurrence in the area. No species-specific surveys were conducted for this evaluation. 

Several migratory bird species of conservation concern protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act were identified. The Relocation Corridor lies 

within the migratory routes of several migratory bird species of conservation concern. Due to 

the presence of undeveloped wooded habitat near open water, the Study Area may contain 

suitable habitat for the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, which have state threatened or 

endangered species status. As reported by the Plaquemines Gazette on May 24, 2016, a bald 

eagle was rescued and relocated from the nearby NAS JRB to the Freeport-McMoRan Audubon 

Species Survival Center. Effects on migratory birds and bald eagles are difficult to quantify, 

however, because they are not stationary and can occupy all habitat types, including developed 

lands. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-28

Table 3-11. Threatened and Endangered Species in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Threatened/Endangered

Red knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened -

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted Endangered

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines - Threatened/Endangered

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Delisted Endangered

Atlantic sturgeon

(Gulf subspecies)

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi Threatened Threatened

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Endangered

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered Endangered

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricate Endangered -

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered -

Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered -

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened -

Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin - Restricted Harvest

Source: USFWS and LDWF online reports for Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes (June 2016): 

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/#threatened-and-endangered-species-section 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/species-parish-list 

Although desktop evaluation identified several species of threatened and endangered birds, 

fish, reptiles and mammals that are believed to occur within Jefferson and Plaquemines 

parishes, based on protected species habitat descriptions, aerial photographs, topographic 

maps, NWI maps, and prior environmental studies within the Study Area, it is unlikely that 

suitable habitat occurs in the Study Area for any listed species. For example, threatened or 

endangered species such as manatee, sea turtles, piping plover, and red knot are found along 

the Louisiana Gulf Coast but are unlikely to be found within the Project’s right-of-way or 

construction areas. The Mississippi River and GIWW in and adjacent to the Study Area may 

provide suitable habitat for the Gulf sturgeon and pallid sturgeon. 

The presence or absence of suitable habitat does not confirm the presence or absence of a 

listed species. 

No-Build Alternative – No direct or indirect impacts to Federal or state threatened or 

endangered species would occur if the Project is not constructed. 

Build Alternative – Based on desktop reviews, FRA made a No Effect determination for all 

federally-listed species except the Atlantic sturgeon and pallid sturgeon. On September 26, 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-29

2016, FRA initiated informal consultation with USFWS and requested concurrence with the May 

Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination for the Atlantic sturgeon and pallid 

sturgeon. On October 19, 2016, the USFWS Louisiana Field Office concurred with FRA’s 

determination (see Appendix F). Additional consultation with resource agencies during the 

permitting phase prior to construction may be needed to confirm that there would be no 

impacts, since changes to habitat and listed species could occur prior to construction. 

The Project may impact the bald eagle, which is a state-listed species and protected by the 

federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. If nesting bald eagles are discovered, federal and 

state guidelines for avoidance and minimization will be followed. If Project activities will occur 

within a 660-foot radius of a nest site, coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries will be required. 

Essential fish habitat (EFH) for commercially important and federally protected species may 

occur in Harvey Canal, Bayou Barataria, and the GIWW within the Study Area. Per FRA 

communication with NMFS, EFH coordination is not necessary for this Project (Appendix F). 

3.11 Transportation Systems 

Transportation systems and the built human environment must work together to serve the 

institutional, economic, and cultural aspects of a local community. These transportation 

systems must allow personal, commercial, and industrial vehicles to maneuver the urban 

environment. 

The NOGC Railway tracks are identified as two separate subdivisions: the Belle Chasse and the 

Westwego Subdivisions. The Westwego portion operates through Westwego, Harvey, Gretna, 

and into a portion of Algiers, while the Belle Chasse Subdivision operates from Algiers and 

Gretna, and along existing LA 23 into the heart of Belle Chasse. According to the NOGC Railway, 

the current train volume in the Westwego Subdivision is 5 to 6 trains per day on average, 

Monday through Friday, ranging from 5 to 50 cars (300 to 3,000 feet long), but up to 110 cars 

during high demand (6,600 feet long). Meanwhile, the current train volume on the Belle Chasse 

Subdivision is 3 trains per day on average, Monday through Friday, ranging from 90 and 110 

cars (5,400 to 6,600 feet long). The average operating speed for these trains is 10 mph with instreet operating speeds between 2 and 4 mph. 

When the longest of potential trains operate in the Westwego Subdivision, the process of train 

assembly and movement within the in-street corridor results in blockage at numerous 

intersections. Additionally, trains traveling between the Westwego and Belle Chasse 

Subdivisions must split at the Gouldsboro Yard and reassemble, a process taking 25 to 30 

minutes and blocking several Gretna streets. This process results in the greatest amount of 

potential motorist delay, congestion, and several intersections operating at level of service 

(LOS) 15 F. This condition comes as a result of the train’s reduced speed combined with the 

longer length of time required for operations to clear to the area. 

 

15 See Glossary for a definition of Level of Service. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-30

Similarly, existing conditions analysis shows that when trains operate within the Belle Chasse 

Subdivision, increased delay creates some reduction in level of service for traffic operations 

within the Gouldsboro Yard to Stumpf Boulevard segment in Gretna. This reduction is not as 

significant as that found in the Westwego Subdivision due to the lower frequency of operations. 

The intersection level of service found and delays observed are not outside of those found in 

most typical urban roadway operations (LOS C/D or better). 

A separate, more detailed discussion of traffic conditions is presented within the Traffic 

Analysis Report – Existing Conditions report16 referenced in Section 8.1. This report provides a 

complete analysis of automobile traffic delays resulting from rail activity within the corridor, 

which includes maximum queue lengths, crossing vehicle delay, and intersection level of 

service. 

3.11.1 Regional Roadway Network 

Regional vehicular movement on the Westbank is influenced greatly by the Mississippi River, 

which has only two regional bridge crossings locally: the Huey P. Long Bridge (more than 7 miles 

west of the Study Area) and the Crescent City Connection at the northern-most point in the 

Study Area. These two crossings influence vehicle flows onto the east-west limited access 

arterial, US 90B - Westbank Expressway. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway similarly funnels Study 

Area traffic southeast to/from New Orleans through two arterial crossings: the LA 407 - General 

DeGaulle Avenue bridge (1 mile northeast of the Study Area in Orleans Parish) and the LA 23 - 

Belle Chasse Highway (Judge Perez) bridge. 

Numerous state and Federal roadways are located within the Study Area. Those roadways that 

travel parallel to the Mississippi River include LA 18 (4th Street and Lafayette Street), US 90B 

(Westbank Expressway), LA 428 (Behrman Highway and Lapalco Boulevard), LA 3017 (Engineers 

Road), LA 406 (Woodland Highway), and LA 23 (Belle Chasse Highway). Other state highways 

that carry vehicle traffic perpendicular to the Mississippi River include Peters Road, Destrehan 

Avenue, and Belle Chasse Highway. Other important arterials within the Study Area include 

Manhattan Boulevard, Terry Parkway, and Gretna Boulevard. 

Within the Study Area, NOGC rail tracks interact with Federal or state highways at-grade in 

several locations as follows: The rail 1) shares right-of-way and lanes with 4th Street from 

Dolhonde Street to Huey P. Long Avenue; 2) crosses over Kepler Street; 3) crosses over 

Behrman Highway; and 4) crosses over Woodland Highway. As detailed within the Traffic 

Analysis Report – Existing Conditions report17, these interactions cause congestion and delays 

for vehicle movements within the region as a whole and within the Study Area in particular. 

No-Build Alternative – If no rail relocation occurs, the regional roadway network would 

experience conditions consistent with those described within the Traffic Analysis Report – No-

 

16 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 

17 Ibid.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-31

Build Conditions (2040)18, i.e., intersection delays and congestion. The 2040 regional roadway 

network would likely feature a variety of improvements throughout the Study Area from road 

extensions, intersection improvements, upgrades to interchanges, and the addition of lane 

capacity. It would likely have a similar percentage of heavy trucks present on local roadways. 

According to the NOGC, future rail traffic within the no-build scenario would remain as found 

currently, 5 to 6 trains per day on average in the Westwego Subdivision and 3 trains per day on 

average in the Belle Chasse Subdivision with train lengths of 5,500 to 6,000 feet, operating 

between 5 and 10 mph. 

The 2040 No-Build scenario analysis results generally indicate no improvements in overall level 

of service compared to the existing conditions. By 2040, the roadway projects in the long-range 

transportation plan allow for the redistribution of vehicle traffic through the network. The 

expectation is that some corridors identified as currently congested would see some 

improvement as traffic shifts onto other roadways. Train volumes are anticipated to remain 

similar to existing conditions as part of the 2040 No-Build scenario. Therefore, train traffic in 

the existing Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions would maintain the periods of delay 

currently experienced by motorists traveling in the area, as a result of passing train traffic. 

Build Alternative – If rail relocation occurs, traffic flow through Gretna and along the LA 23 

corridor would generally improve. The congestion found at the highway-rail crossings would be 

reduced and potentially eliminated as rail service running through Gretna would be relocated 

to the Peters Road corridor. Rail service would continue along 4th Street, but could potentially 

end at the International Matex Tank Terminal (IMTT) along the riverfront at the Gretna City 

Limits, which is west of the current at-grade crossing at Dolhonde Street. Traffic Analysis Report 

– Future Conditions, Build 204019 describes the forecasted traffic analysis. The 2040 regional 

roadway network would feature a variety of improvements around the Study Area from road 

extensions, intersection improvements, upgrades to interchanges, and the addition of lane 

capacity. 

The 2040 Build Alternative results analysis generally indicates that as trains operate in the 

relocated rail corridor, an impact at the roadway crossings would occur with LOS D or better 

projected for train lengths less than 5,600 feet. Trains longer than 5,600 feet might result in 

some decrease in LOS to a value of E. 

As detailed in the Traffic Analysis Report, relocating the rail traffic from the Belle Chasse 

Subdivision along LA 23 would alleviate at-grade intersection vehicle congestion for several 

arterial and local street at-grade crossings in this corridor. The relocation would increase rail 

traffic in the Peters Road corridor as well as associated delays created when trains cross 

through the at-grade crossings on Peters Road. Locations impacted within the Preferred 

Alternative, in Jefferson Parish there would be five public at-grade crossings: 1) LA 18/4th

Street; 2) Peters Road (2-lane northbound only); 3) Gold Street; 4) Peters Road (4-lane); and 

5) at Peters Road reconstruction north of Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park. Trains traveling through 

 

18 Ibid. 

19 Ibid.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-32

the first three intersections would block vehicle access for a small subset of the Peters Road 

Corridor, as well as diminish access to 4th Street (LA 18) for east-west trips to Gretna and 

Westwego. South of Gold Street, Peters Road remains passible with traffic able to access one of 

two other east-west connections: Westbank Expressway (US 90) or Lapalco Boulevard to bypass 

the area and rejoin LA 18 outside of the corridor area. Continuous traffic flow along Peters Road 

south of Harvey Boulevard would stop during periods when trains would cross the corridor. 

However, options remain for traffic to avoid these locations, using a combination of other roads 

to bypass the area. The option to use any of the available bypasses would need to be weighed 

against the time and distance added to travel in these areas versus awaiting the resumption of 

highway connectivity once trains finish passing. Travel time delays and long traffic queues of 

stopped motorists at the crossings would be likely outcomes by those unable or unwilling to 

use an alternative route. 

Meanwhile, there would be only one additional new public at-grade crossing in Plaquemines 

Parish crossing LA 23 between Cedar Drive and River Oaks Drive. Trains crossing at this location 

would stop traffic flow on LA 23 south of Belle Chasse. Traffic traveling north could opt to use 

the proposed Peters Road extension to travel northeast away from the crossing and bypass the 

crossing. Traffic destined to the regional network could continue on Peters Road to either 

Lapalco Boulevard or the Westbank Expressway (US 90). Traffic destined to LA 23 could use 

Engineers Road (LA 3017) to continue east back to the corridor. Using either bypass could add 

time and minimal distance to trips originating south of Belle Chasse. With advance notice via 

signage of a train crossing ahead, traffic traveling south on LA 23 could utilize the same bypass 

route. However, if this notice does not occur or if discovery occurs upon arriving at the crossing, 

it might be determined infeasible to turn around to use the bypass route. In these instances, 

additional time spent in travel on LA 23 southbound would be associated with waiting times for 

trains to pass and traffic flow to return to normal. 

3.11.2 Rail Transportation 

The New Orleans region represents an important junction within the national freight rail 

transportation network. The Huey P. Long Bridge, located several miles west of the Study Area, 

is the southern-most crossing of the Mississippi River in the United States. Additionally, the 

New Orleans region boasts a nationally relevant oil/gas industry, one of the largest maritime 

port complexes in the world, and six Class I freight rail companies operating through its 

jurisdictions. In particular to this study, Westbank industrial clients in Jefferson Parish and 

Plaquemines Parish are served by the NOGC Railway, which provides freight service from 

Westwego, Louisiana to the Gouldsboro Yard in Algiers to Myrtle Grove, Louisiana (32 miles). 

These factors combined make the rail transportation network in the New Orleans region heavily 

used and in demand. 

No-Build Alternative – If no rail relocation occurs, the rail transportation network will 

experience conditions consistent with those described within Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build 

Conditions (2040).

20 Train traffic would remain at the same volumes through the existing 

 

20 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-33

Westwego and Belle Chasse subdivisions. Local vehicular transportation congestion and delays 

would persist throughout the area as trains continue operating in the streets of the City of 

Gretna and parallel to the LA 23 corridor. The 2040 No-Build scenario analysis results generally 

indicate no improvements in overall level of service from the existing condition. According to 

the NOGC, 2040 No-Build scenario rail traffic would remain the same at current levels 

(Table 3-12).

Build Alternative – By relocating the Belle Chasse Subdivision rail traffic to the Peters Road 

corridor, the future increase in train volume within the Relocation Corridor would be 3 trains 

per day in addition to existing traffic levels found in the Belle Chasse Subdivision. The resulting 

total rail traffic will feature up to 13 trains per day with average lengths assumed from 3,000 to 

6,000 feet in length (50 to 100 rail cars). The average train operating speed provided by the 

NOGC Railway in the relocated rail corridor is estimated at 10 to 20 mph. 

Table 3-12 compares existing rail volumes to both the 2040 No-Build and Build Alternatives. 

Table 3-12. Comparison of Train Traffic (Existing vs. 2040 NOGC Forecasts) 

Location Existing Conditions 2040 No-Build Alternative 2040 Build Alternative

Westwego 

Subdivision

5 to 6 trains per day 

(average), Mon-Fri

5 to 6 trains per day 

(average), Mon-Fri

Maintain service to existing 

customers along LA 18 between 

Peters Road and Gretna City Limit

Belle Chasse 

Subdivision

3 trains per day 

(average), Mon-Fri

3 trains per day 

(average), Mon-Fri

Loss of traffic in corridor as 

compared to no-build scenario

Relocation 

Corridor --- ---

Up to 13 trains per day:

10 new trains (5 NB and 5 SB), plus

3 existing trains per day, from 

Westwego and Belle Chasse

Source: NOGC Railway 

Under the Build Alternative, NOGC Railway traffic would primarily operate in the relocated 

railway corridor and a very limited portion of the Westwego Subdivision, oriented to client 

deliveries to customers east of the International Matex Tank Terminal (IMTT) facility along the 

riverfront at the Gretna City limit. Depending on the disposition of the Perry Street Wharf, rail 

traffic through Gretna would decrease significantly or there would be no rail traffic along 4th 

Street. The Port of New Orleans owns the Perry Street Wharf, which has historically been 

served by the NOGC Railway. Although the NOGC has a common carrier obligation to serve all 

customers, the Perry Street Wharf currently has no industrial rail users. Subsequently, there is 

no rail service to the Perry Street Wharf facility. Currently, NOGC’s switching operations take 

place at Gouldsboro Yard, which is immediately adjacent to the Perry Street Wharf. Whether or 

not there will be future rail traffic to the Perry Street Wharf (from approximately rail segment 1 

to segment 5 in Figure 2-4) depends on Port of New Orleans decisions about the future use of 

Perry Street Wharf. With the Preferred Alternative, rail operations would cease on track 

between Gouldsboro Yard/Perry Street Wharf and the Chevron Oronite Plant (from 

approximately rail segment 6 to segment 13 in Figure 2-4). The majority of this track is located 

parallel to Belle Chasse Highway/LA 23 from Mel Ott Park in Gretna southward to Belle Chasse. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-34

Service would discontinue on the section of the Belle Chasse Subdivision from the 

Jefferson/Plaquemines Parish line to near Russell Drive under the Preferred Alternative. As a 

result, none of the intersections on the Westwego Subdivision east of the Gretna City Limit or 

along the Belle Chasse Subdivision between Gouldsboro Yard and Russell Drive would 

experience rail-induced delay created by the operation of the NOGC Railway. For more details, 

see Traffic Analysis Report – Future Conditions, Build 2040.

21

3.11.3 Local Vehicular Transportation 

The majority of the Study Area has a development pattern that can be described as post-war, 

car-dependent suburban. While the older portions of Gretna, closer to the river, have a grid 

street pattern, smaller lots, and a history of mixing land uses within an area, the rest of the 

Study Area has commercial corridors and separated single-family residential subdivisions. These 

areas contain higher intensity uses along state-owned highways/arterial roadways with less 

intense, more residential uses located off main thoroughfares, tucked away from high volume 

roads. 

Within the Study Area, NOGC rail tracks interact with local roadways throughout the length of 

the rail corridor. As detailed within the Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions,

22 these 

interactions cause congestion and delays for vehicle movements throughout the Study Area. 

No-Build Alternative – If no rail relocation occurs, the rail transportation network would 

experience conditions consistent with those described within Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build 

Conditions (2040).

23 Train traffic would remain at the same volumes through the existing 

Westwego and Belle Chasse subdivisions. Local vehicular transportation congestion and delays 

would persist throughout the area as trains continue operating in the streets of the City of 

Gretna and parallel to the LA 23 corridor. The 2040 local roadway network would feature a 

variety of improvements throughout the Study Area from road extensions, intersection 

improvements, upgrades to interchanges, and the addition of lane capacity; however, none of 

these projects would create a separation between the existing at-grade rail and road/driveway 

crossings in the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. 

Even with a redistribution of traffic associated with the proposed highway system 

improvements in the 2040 network, daily delay would remain higher in the Westwego 

Subdivision, driven in large part by the slow travel times encountered in these areas as a result 

of in-street rail operations and opportunities for interruption by on-street vehicles within the 

City of Gretna. A total of 119 public and private existing at-grade crossings are located along the 

existing NOGC rail corridor within the Study Area as shown in Figure 3-5. 

 

21 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 

22 Ibid. 

23 Ibid.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-35

Build Alternative – If rail relocation improvements are completed, rail service would be less 

frequent in most segments of the existing NOGC rail corridor east of the Harvey Canal. As 

shown in Table 3-13, service through at-grade crossings in segments 2 through 12 would be 

reduced, based upon the needs generated by existing customers. As noted previously, the 

disposition of rail traffic to the Port of New Orleans Perry Street Wharf remains uncertain. In 

addition, it remains possible the future might include no NOGC Railway traffic along Belle 

Chasse Highway through Gretna and Terrytown with the Preferred Alternative. The number of 

public and private at-grade crossings in the existing NOGC corridor regularly crossed by rail 

service would decrease from 119 to 22. It remains uncertain whether existing track along 4th 

Street in Gretna would be removed as a separate action subsequent to the proposed rail 

relocation. Should all tracks and crossings remain, the NOGC has the responsibility of crossing 

maintenance. 

The Preferred Alternative would eliminate numerous sources of congestion along the Belle 

Chasse Highway corridor. Table 3-14 presents the future highway-rail at-grade crossings along 

the Preferred Alternative alignment. As shown in Table 3-14, there would be six new public atgrade crossings between 4th Street (LA 18) and LA 23, and two additional public at-grade 

crossings east of LA 23, that are simply relocations of the grade crossings at Dockside Road and 

East Walker Road. Also shown in Table 3-14, the majority of the new at-grade crossings along 

the Preferred Alternative alignment are at the 85 private driveways, with passing trains 

blocking driveway access points to industrial and related commercial businesses located along 

the rail line between 4th Street (LA 18) and rail crossing of Peters Road at the Murphy Canal. 

Trains passing along the corridor will create delay for those entering/exiting businesses along 

the corridor equivalent to the time required for trains to clear individual driveways. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-36

Figure 3-5. Existing At-Grade Railroad Crossings in the Study Area 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-37

Table 3-13. Future Highway Rail At-Grade Crossings along Existing NOGC Rail Corridor 

Segment 

No.

Approximate 

Segment Limits

Existing 

No. of Public 

and Private

At-grade 

Crossings

Future 

No. of

Public and 

Private

At-grade 

Crossings

Notes

Westwego Subdivision

1 Harvey Canal Dolhonde Street 5 5 See Note 1

2 Dolhonde Street Amelia Street 11 0 See Note 1

3 Amelia Street Ocean Avenue 3 0 See Note 1

4

Ocean

Avenue

Jefferson/

Orleans 

Parish Line 

3 0 See Note 1

5

Jefferson/

Orleans 

Parish Line

McDonough

Street 0 0 See Note 1

Belle Chasse Subdivision

6 McDonough Street Cook Street 9 0

7 Cook Street US 90B/

Westbank Expy 3 0

8

US 90B/

Westbank Expy 23rd Street 4 0

9 23rd Street

Jefferson/

Plaquemines 

Parish Line

32 0

10

Jefferson/

Plaquemines 

Parish Line

GIWW 4 0

11 GIWW Main Street 21 0

12 Main Street Russell Drive 8 1 See Note 2

13 Russell Drive Walker Road 16 16 See Note 3

Total No. of At-grade Crossings 119 22

No. of At-grade Crossings Eliminated 97

 Notes: 

1. Assumes rail service to existing customers along 4th Street between the Harvey Canal and Dolhonde Street; no 

foreseeable service to Perry Street Wharf. 

2. Access to NOGC Belle Chase Yard would be maintained; therefore the at-grade crossing at Belle Chasse Launch Road 

would remain. Also assumes Seatrain Road crossing and crossings northward would be eliminated. 

3. Existing at-grade crossings within this segment would remain in-place to provide continued access to both NOGC’s

Belle Chasse Yard and the Chevron Oronite Plant. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-38

Table 3-14. Future Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings along the Preferred Alternative 

Sheet 

No.

1

Approximate Limits 2; 

Station Limits (Sta #)

No. of New and 

Relocated

At-grade Crossings

List of Public At-Grade Crossings

and Station Locations and Remarks

Public Private Total

A-1

LA 18/4th St;

Sta 0+00

South of US 90B; 

Sta 46+00 4 18 22

 LA 18/4th St; Sta 4+00

 Peters Road (2-lane, NB only); Sta 5+00

 Gold St; Sta 11+00

 Peters Road (4-lane); Sta 15+00

A-2

South of US 90B; 

Sta 46+00

South of Norman St;

Sta 84+00 0 17 17

A-3

North of Aimee St; 

Sta 84+00

South of Joseph St;

Sta 128+00 0 22 22

A-4

North of Breaux Ave;

Sta 128+00

South of Hydradyne;

Sta 166+50 0 13 13

Note: 5 of the 13 private crossings provide 

access to businesses on the west side of the 

Boomtown Floodwall None

A-5

North of Abandoned 

Warehouses;

Sta 166+50

South of Entergy 

Substation;

Sta 207+00

0 9 9

Note: 9 private crossings provide access to 

businesses on the west side of the Boomtown 

Floodwall

A-6

North of Hassel’s;

Sta 207+50

South of Boomtown;

Sta 252+00 1 3 4

 Relocated Peters Rd; Sta 223+00

Note: 1 private crossing provides access to 

businesses on the west side of the Boomtown 

Floodwall 

A-7

North of Pull-a-Part;

Sta 252+00

South of Peters Rd;

Sta 294+50 0 0 0

A-8

North of GIWW;

Sta 294+50

South of Buccaneer Rd;

Sta 334+00 0 1 1

A-9

Vacant land;

Sta 334+00

Vacant land;

Sta 380+00 0 0 0

A-10 West of Bayou Barriere;

Sta 380+00

Vacant land;

Sta 420+30 0 1 1

A-11 Vacant land;

Sta 420+30

Vacant land;

Sta 463+50 0 0 0

A-12 West of Burt Dr;

Sta 463+50

East of LA 23;

Sta 488+07 1 1 2

 LA 23/Belle Chasse Highway; Sta 486+00

Subtotal 6 85 91 Limits: 4th Street to LA 23

A-13 South of Sewer Plant Rd;

No Sta #

South of Chevron Park;

No Sta # 1

3 1 2

 The existing public crossing at Dockside 

Road will be relocated to the east as part of 

the wye connection; not included in the 

total number of new at-grade crossings 3

A-14 South of Access Rd 4;

No Sta #

Bedalamenti Ln;

No Sta # 1

4 4 5

 The existing public crossing at E. Walker 

Road will be relocated to the east as part of 

the wye connection; not included in the 

total number of new at-grade crossings 4

Total No. of New and Relocated At-grade Crossings 8 90 98

Notes: 

1. See Appendix B, Preferred Alternative Conceptual Plans. 

2. Approximate limits defined by street names, businesses or other physical features as shown on individual plan sheets A-1 through A-14 within 

Appendix B. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-39

3.11.4 Parking and Access

Study Area parking and access reflects this same car-dependent suburban built environment. 

Highest volume elevated roadways such as the Westbank Expressway have limited access, while 

other high volume arterials (i.e., Belle Chasse Highway, Lapalco Boulevard, or Behrman Highway) 

generally limit curb cuts and vehicular access, while restricting parking to off-street dedicated 

parking lots. Lastly, lower volume roads provide the greatest access and largely allow parking onstreet as space allows. This has occurred in the City of Gretna along 4th Street and Madison 

Street where on-street parking co-exists with the travel way for vehicles and the active rail line 

imbedded in the street surface. This creates challenging conditions in areas where rail lines are 

closest to the curb line and eliminate on-street parking on one side of the roadway. Some 

residents have taken the initiative to park in these areas, over the rail tracks, moving their 

vehicles as necessary when trains pass. In downtown Gretna, portions of the existing street area 

between the rail line and existing curbs have become critically needed on-street parking areas 

used to facilitate delivery zones for businesses as short-term parking/parking by permission for 

residents and business patrons. 

Developed parcels along the Harvey Canal between 4th Street and Lapalco Boulevard average 

350 to 400 feet of depth from the edge of Peters Road to the Canal. Most businesses with longer 

frontage along Peters Road have delineated off-street parking, staging and delivery areas inside 

of floodwalls, fences/gates or similar structures marked clearly as employee/visitor only. Sites 

south of Lapalco have greater depth between Peters Road and the Canal, making organization of 

large surface lots possible. Along Peters Road, the roadway typical section does not include

curbs or sidewalks. The lack of clearly defined driveways and absence of on-street parking zones 

results in business patrons regularly crossing this area to pull up in front of businesses or parking 

their vehicles on the Hooper Spur during periods of parking overflow (i.e. demand for parking 

exceeding supply) or during delivery activities. Figure 3-6 is a photograph of vehicles parked 

within the abandoned Hooper Spur ROW (abandoned rails shown in the bottom left of the 

photograph with parked vehicles facing the rails). A lack of frequent train travel in this area along 

with a lack of parking controls or enforcement prevent quantification of this demand. In 

addition, lack of regular enforcement actions allows vehicles to keep using this area. Generally, 

the process remains self-regulated, with those parking on the Hooper Spur coming and going as 

necessary or working with adjacent property owners to move vehicles as to not block existing 

parking areas/spaces. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-40

Figure 3-6. Photograph of Parking within Abandoned Hooper Spur 

No-Build Alternative – If no improvements are made, the parking and access patterns in the 

Study Area would persist. Parking activities in Gretna on 4th Street and Madison Street would 

continue as found within the current practices. However, an increase in train volumes may 

discourage some from using portions of the curb zone closest to the rail line, pushing this 

demand onto adjacent streets. Businesses along Peters Road would continue to use the Hooper 

Spur as described, along with a combination of their front, side and rear yards for vehicle 

parking, storage and deliveries. 

Build Alternative – If the Preferred Alternative is built, the existing parking and access patterns 

in the Study Area would generally remain unchanged, but open areas on top of the Hooper 

Spur (see Figure 3-6) would no longer be available as overflow parking areas south of LA 18. The 

Build Alternative means that those visiting businesses in this area would lose access to the 

Hooper Spur as a parking area. The quantity of the loss remains unknown, as the Project’s final 

design has yet to be complete. Individual businesses in this area which use the Hooper Spur for 

more than short-term parking would be at the greatest potential loss, but the area is not an 

official parking lot or parking zone and its use for such remains inconsistent with its purpose. 

Finding an alternative for parking in this area may become evident later in the design phase of 

this Project as part of the general discussion of community impacts. As a state highway, access 

management policies would need to be maintained on Peters Road consistent with current and 

future LADOTD policies. 

3.12 Residential and Industrial Structure Relocations 

This section discusses the potential residential and industrial structure relocations. Any 

relocations would be performed in accordance with Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §61. 

No-Build Alternative – No relocations would be required for the No-Build Alternative. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-41

Build Alternative – As part of the required right-of way for the Project, relocations associated 

with the Preferred Alternative are anticipated. Between 4th Street and Jennie Street, 

relocations are anticipated due to the horizontal curve alignment associated with connecting 

the Preferred Alternative from 4th Street to Peters Road. In addition, the crossing location of 

the GIWW would potentially impact property and businesses located between Bayou Barataria 

and the GIWW; impacts would primarily be due to the location of bridge columns and piers. 

These impacts could be mitigated in the future design phase of the Project with topographic 

surveys and more advanced bridge design. Relocations are also anticipated on the south end of 

the corridor which are associate with the wye connection east of LA 23. 

The Preferred Alternative would require a total of 12 relocations (10 industrial and 2 residential 

structures) as shown in Table 3-15. The locations of residential and industrial structures 

requiring relocation are shown on the Right-of-way and Relocation Map sheets in Appendix C. 

Table 3-15. Location and Number of Estimated Industrial and Residential Relocations 

General Location of Relocation

Number/Type of 

Relocations Appendix C 

Map Sheet No. Industrial Residential

Track curve along Peters Road between Gold 

Street and Jennie Street 3 -- 1 of 14

Near the intersection of Peters Road Relocation 

and the Preferred Alternative near Murphy Canal 1 -- 6 of 14

Between Barataria Bayou and Engineers Road 2 -- 7 of 14 and 8 of 14

Between Engineers Road and United Tugs Road 2 -- 7 of 14 and 8 of 14

On the GIWW near the end of United Tugs Road 1 -- 8 of 14

Between LA 23 and the Mississippi River 

levee/Highway 11 south of the wye that connects 

the proposed alignment to the existing NOGC 

Belle Chasse Subdivision

1

1 2 14 of 14

Total 10 2

Notes: 

1. Current site of Southern Arch, a wood salvage and interior design company and the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site. 

3.13 Utilities 

The following overhead and underground utilities have been identified within the Project’s rightof-way, with confirmation of their exact location required during future surveys: 

 Overhead power (Entergy Louisiana) and communication (AT&T/AT&T Fiber; Cox 

Communications) lines extend along and across the Relocation Corridor and provide 

service to adjacent neighborhoods and industries. Utility poles are located within the 

Project’s right-of-way. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-42

 Underground water lines and sewer lines (Jefferson Parish) as well as underground 

natural gas (ATMOS Energy) serve properties along the Peters Road corridor as well as 

extend into the adjacent neighborhoods. 

 Existing subsurface and open swale drainage systems (LADOTD and Jefferson Parish) are 

located within the Project’s right-of-way. 

 The National Pipeline Mapping System Public Map Viewer indicates that a Gulf South 

Pipeline Company, LP natural gas transmission pipeline crosses Peters Road at Lapalco 

Boulevard and is currently in service. 

 Four water wells and one oil/gas well fall within the Project’s right-of-way limits. Hazards 

associated with oil/gas wells are described in more detail in Section 3.18, Contaminated 

Sites. 

No-Build Alternative – No utility relocations would be required for the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative – Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require some adjustment, 

relocation or modification of existing public utilities along Peters Road from 4th Street to just 

south of Murphy Canal as well as within the vicinity of proposed at-grade crossings. Overhead 

and underground utilities may require coordination and potential relocations during project 

design and construction. For example, overhead power and communication lines and utility 

poles that are located within the project right-of-way may need to be relocated. 

Drainage upgrades would need to be made to the existing subsurface and open swale drainage 

systems along the corridor. Along Peters Road between 4th Street and Lapalco Boulevard, an 

evaluation of the existing subsurface drainage system would be required to ensure that the rail 

alignment would not impede existing drainage patterns. The proposed rail bed including ballast, 

would need to be designed to a certain elevation in order to allow existing stormwater runoff to 

adequately flow to area inlets along the roadway and to inlets which are located on private 

property. South of Lapalco Boulevard to the Murphy Canal crossing, a new open swale drainage 

system would be required to accommodate the required drainage for both the Preferred 

Alternative alignment adjacent to the Boomtown Floodwall and the reconstruction of Peters 

Road. 

Project design would include utility surveys and subsurface utility investigations to determine 

the horizontal and vertical location of utility infrastructure. This would be followed by design 

phase services that would identify potential utility impacts and potential relocations or 

adjustments. Utility coordination for the Project would employ methods including phased 

relocation or modification to minimize interruptions in service. All modifications, relocations or 

adjustments would remain subject to coordination with the affected utilities. Coordination 

would be required to ensure that overhead and underground utilities meet American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance Association (AREMA) standards within the proposed ROW. For 

pipelines and other underground infrastructure, Louisiana One Call24 would be contacted prior 

to commencing construction operations. 

 

24 Louisiana One Call (811) is the regional notification center for compliance with the Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage 

Prevention Law.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-43

3.14 Flood Control Projects 

The Study Area contains or is adjacent to levees that serve as flood control and hurricane risk 

reduction in the Greater New Orleans area. Portions of the recently constructed $14.45 billion 

Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS) are included in the Study Area. 

The West Bank and Vicinity (WBV) project, which is part of the HSDRRS, is defined as the risk 

reduction features on the west bank of the Mississippi River in St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans 

and Plaquemines parishes (USACE 2013a). The WBV features located within the Study Area 

include a portion of the Harvey and Algiers Canal levees (shown in orange in Figure 3-7) as well 

as portions of the Federal Mississippi River and Tributaries project levees (shown in blue in 

Figure 3-7).

Figure 3-7. Major Components of the West Bank and Vicinity Project 

Source: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/PAO/FactSheets/WBV.pdf accessed on May 31, 

2016. 

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not relocate the existing rail and 

therefore has no impact on flood control projects. 

Build Alternative – Impacts of the Preferred Alternative on WBV projects within the Study Area 

are discussed in the following sections. 

GIWW West Closure Complex. The GIWW West Closure Complex is a major feature of the WBV 

project which reduces risk for residences and businesses in three parishes on the Westbank: 

Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines parishes. Construction of the complex eliminated 26 miles 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-44

of levees and floodwalls parallel to the canals from the WBV perimeter risk reduction system 

and allows the Harvey and Algiers canals to serve as a detention basin for rainwater draining 

from the three parishes (USACE 2013b). The GIWW West Closure Complex is not impacted by 

the Project because it is located in the southwest corner of the Study Area outside the Project’s 

right-of-way. 

Harvey Canal West Bank Levee. The Harvey Canal West Bank Levee parallels the west side of 

the Harvey Canal and is not impacted by the Project, which is located on the east side of the 

Harvey Canal. 

Algiers Canal Floodwall. The Algiers Canal Floodwall connects to Boomtown Floodwall on the 

west side of Peters Road. Since the proposed rail alignment crosses over from the west side to 

the east side of Peters Road north of Boomtown Casino, the Project has no impact on the 

Algiers Canal Floodwall. 

Boomtown Floodwall. The Boomtown Floodwall, which roughly parallels the east side of the 

Harvey Canal along Peters Road, is part of the WBV project that allows the Harvey and Algiers 

Canals to serve as a detention basin for rainwater. A portion of the existing Hooper Spur and 

the proposed rail relocation alignment parallels the Boomtown Floodwall on top of the USACE’s 

perpetual underground floodwall easement. USACE New Orleans District staff indicated that 

the floodwalls were designed to account for railroad loads and that the ROW for the relocated 

rail alignment paralleling the floodwall must be at least 15 feet from the floodwall. The Project 

would not impact the floodwall because it will comply with the USACE 15-foot buffer. 

GIWW (Algiers Canal) Levees. Levees are located along both sides of the GIWW (also referred 

to as the Algiers Canal in this area). The Project crosses the GIWW and requires a movable 

bridge. The Project will continue to be coordinated with USACE to ensure it does not impact the 

GIWW/Algiers Canal levees. 

Cousins Canal Floodwall, Cousins Canal Pump Station, and Lapalco Floodgate. The Cousins 

Canal Floodwall, Cousins Canal Pump Station, and Lapalco Floodgate are in the vicinity of 

Lapalco Boulevard to the west of Peters Road. Since the proposed rail alignment does not cross 

these features and is located several hundred feet away from Peters Road, it does not impact 

these features. 

Mississippi River Levees. The levees along the Mississippi River that parallel LA 23/Belle Chasse 

Highway in Plaquemines Parish are part of the WBV project. USACE New Orleans District staff 

indicated that the ROW for the relocated rail alignment must be at least 15 feet from the 

Mississippi River levees. The proposed track for the wye connection east of LA 23 would be 

greater than 15 feet from the Mississippi River levee at its closest location and therefore would 

have no impact on the Mississippi River levees. 

Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Program (SELA) Projects: Murphy Canal. The 

proposed rail relocation alignment crosses Murphy Canal, which is part of the Southeast 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-45

Louisiana Urban Flood Control Program (SELA). The proposed rail relocation alignment crosses 

at the juncture between SELA 16 – Murphy Canal, North and SELA 16a – Murphy Canal, South. 

No impacts to the SELA program are expected. 

HSDRRS Borrow Areas. Several borrow areas are located in the southwest corner of the Study 

Area and one borrow area is located near the NAS JRB.25 The proposed rail alignment does not 

cross or impact these borrow areas. 

3.14.1 Permitting 

Title 33, Section 208.10 of the CFR requires the Secretary of the Army, through the USACE and 

its authorized delegates (e.g., levee districts and other local project sponsors), to operate and 

maintain federally authorized and constructed flood control and hurricane risk reduction 

projects. Levee districts, as state sponsors of most of these projects, are partners with the 

USACE and must operate and maintain the projects, as well as protect the structural integrity 

by administering a proactive flood control permit program. The permit program is overseen by 

local levee districts in cooperation with the Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and 

Restoration (OCPR), Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD), and 

the USACE. Permit applications are submitted to the appropriate levee district as the permitting 

agency, with the USACE, OCPR, and LADOTD providing technical input. Within the USACE New 

Orleans District, a flood control permit is required for subsurface work (e.g., excavation, pile 

driving) within 1,500 feet of the centerline of Mississippi River and Tributaries levees and all 

work within 300 feet of the levee centerline or 250 feet from the visible levee toe for the 

Mississippi River and Tributaries projects. 

In addition, Title 33, Section 408 of the U.S.C. prohibits the use or alteration of any Federal 

project for navigation and flood control unless the Secretary of the Army, on the 

recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, grants permission for the alteration or permanent 

occupation or use of any such Federal public works based on the judgment that such 

occupation or use “will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness 

of such work.” Given the Preferred Alternative’s proximity to the Federal levees, the Project 

would require a Section 408 (alteration of USACE civil works projects) review by the USACE. The 

USACE Regulatory Branch cannot issue a Section 404/Section 10 permit until the Section 408 

Request has been approved. 

It is anticipated that the Preferred Alternative would also require a flood control permit from 

one or more levee districts and reviewed by OCPR, LADOTD, and the USACE. The levee districts 

with jurisdiction in the Study Area are the West Jefferson Levee District and Algiers Levee 

District, which make up the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – West, and the 

Plaquemines Parish Government. The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-West 

(SLFPA-W) will require a levee permit as the project will include construction involving major 

excavation within 1,500 feet of levees within the SLFPA-West’s jurisdiction along the Harvey 

Canal, GIWW and Mississippi River. 

 

25 www.nolaenvironmental.gove/viewer/nola_viewer.aspx accessed on January 29, 2016. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-46

3.15 Land Use and Zoning 

3.15.1 Land Use 

Existing Land Use. Existing land development in the Study Area is a combination of residential, 

commercial, industrial and vacant land. Within the Relocation Corridor, the Peters Road 

Corridor has historically been one of Jefferson Parish’s primary heavy industrial areas 

supporting oil field exploration and industrial services since its inception. Parcels fronting the 

west side of Peters Road are adjacent to the Harvey Canal, a commercial-industrial waterway. 

The most common land use activities in this area include the types of heavy industrial activities 

associated with marine commerce, ship building and rehabilitation, refining, manufacturing, 

and mechanical and oil field services, along with storage yards and abandoned warehousing. 

Parcels fronting the east side of Peter Road, while holding activities that are generally 

industrial, back up to established residential and commercial areas between 4th Street and 

Lapalco Boulevard. 

In Plaquemines Parish, the Relocation Corridor traverses land areas currently undeveloped with 

some larger lot residential development/agricultural development near the GIWW as well as 

individual smaller lot residential development concentrated along local streets intersecting with 

LA 23 southwest of the NAS/JRB base. These areas are also interspersed with commercial and 

industrial uses. 

Future Land Use. As the three units of government comprising the Study Area (City of Gretna, 

Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish) used three different categorization techniques for 

land use, these have been generalized and tabulated (Table 3-16 and Figure 3-8). As seen in 

Figure 3-8, future land uses in the Study Area (2020-2030) include varying densities of 

residential development, along with commercial development clustered along corridors or in 

nodal proximity to major intersections. Similarly, industrial development would be encouraged 

along specific corridors such as within the existing industrial corridors near Peters Road,

Engineers Road, and LA 23. 

Two of the three jurisdictions comprising the Study Area, the City of Gretna and Plaquemines 

Parish, continue to work on their comprehensive plans which would guide future land use 

decisions in the Study Area. Within the Relocation Corridor, only the future land use plans and 

current zoning ordinances of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish apply as the Gretna City 

Limits do not extend into this area. 

Jefferson Parish has an adopted Comprehensive Plan26 which includes a future land use map 

identifying the Relocation Corridor as having heavy industrial land uses, which is consistent with 

the current uses found in this area. 

 

26 Envision Jefferson 2020. Adopted in 2003.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-47

Plaquemines Parish’s adopted long-range land use approach encourages a transition of land use 

in the vacant areas in the Relocation Corridor into a combination of industrial uses and business 

parks. In addition, future land use decisions in this area remain subject to the outcomes of the 

Joint Land Use Study completed for the NAS/JRB New Orleans base in December 2010.27 This 

study, accepted by the Parish, discourages future residential development around the base and 

its runways due to the noise and safety requirements associated with maintenance of the 

ongoing airfield operations. Under the terms of this plan’s enforcement by the Parish, this 

would generally discourage an expansion of future residential land uses near the NAS JRB. The 

future land use map for Plaquemines Parish anticipates an expansion of industrial and 

commercial activities within the Relocation Corridor west of the NAS/JRB Base made possible 

by future improvements to highway access created through the extension of Peters Road across 

the GIWW, generally parallel to the proposed rail corridor, through the Relocation Corridor. 

Table 3-16. Future Study Area Generalized Land Use (2020-2030) 

Land Use Categories Total Acres Percent of Total

Business 119 0.6%

Commercial 1,389 6.7%

Business Park 3,120 15.0%

Port – Marine 73 0.3%

Industrial 3,064 14.7%

Mixed-Use 456 2.2%

Civic 4,989 24.0%

Planned Unit Development 25 0.1%

High Density Residential 306 1.5%

Medium Density Residential 277 1.3%

Low Density Residential 5,925 28.5%

Agriculture 7 0.0%

Recreation and Open Space 563 2.7%

Resource Conservation 86 0.4%

Under Study 415 2.0%

Total 20,814 100%

Source: City of Gretna, Plaquemines Parish, Jefferson Parish, 2016 

No-Build Alternative – Since there would be no improvements involved, there would be no 

impacts to the existing land uses as a result of the No-Build Alternative. Existing developed 

areas would remain, with no changes anticipated in the demand for residential development in 

the City of Gretna, as well as commercial development along the highly traveled LA 23 corridor 

in both Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes. 

Build Alternative – Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would relocate the existing 

NOGC railway away from areas with primarily residential/commercial existing and future land 

 

27 Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS JRB) New Orleans, Joint Land Use Study, December 2010, completed by GCR, Inc. and BurkKleinpeter, Inc., www.JLUSNewOrleans,com. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-48

uses to the primarily industrial Relocation Corridor. The Project would affect a few residential 

areas. The Project’s proposed intersection at LA 18 would place the rail on the edge of the 

industrial area, adjacent and directly visible to three blocks of residential land use on St. Joseph 

Lane (1 block east of Peters Road) between LA 18 and Jennie Street. In addition, the rail would 

cross LA 23 in Plaquemines Parish in an area containing a combination of residential, 

commercial and industrial activities. The proposed location of this crossing would be in an area 

where the existing land uses remain vacant/undeveloped, and offers a potential buffer of 

nearby developed areas from the proposed railway. 

3.15.2 Zoning

Regulation of land use within the Study Area occurs through application of zoning found in the 

Jefferson Parish Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,28 the City of Gretna Code of Ordinances,29

and Plaquemines Parish Code of Ordinances.30 

The information presented in this section looks at the general overview of what is currently 

permitted by zoning maps and ordinance text in place at the time of survey. The results of this 

review are shown in Table 3-17, Table 3-18, and Figure 3-9. 

As the City of Gretna, Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish have differing zoning definitions, 

the various zoning categories have been generalized, with a summary of land areas found in 

each presented in Table 3-17. As shown in the table, the majority of the Study Area remains 

zoned for Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family, and Rural/Single Family residential 

(53 percent). Behind residential zones, the NAS JRB military facility in Belle Chasse and the 

various industrial zones are the second largest zone district types (17 percent). The various 

commercial zones within the Study Area comprise just over 11 percent of the total. 

A similar pattern appears in the Relocation Corridor (Table 3-18 and Figure 3-9), with the 

majority of the area (58.8 percent) being zoned for a host of residential activities including 

Single, Two-Family and Multiple Family, along with Rural/Single Family. The greatest 

concentration of residential zoning in the Relocation Corridor appears in Plaquemines Parish 

south of the GIWW to LA 23. Industrial zoning only applies to 31.5 percent of the Relocation 

Corridor, with the majority of these areas found along Peters Road within Jefferson Parish, and 

within Plaquemines Parish along Engineers Road as well as some parcels along LA 23 extending 

north toward the proposed rail corridor west of the NAS JRB base. 

 

28 Jefferson Parish Municipal Code, Part II, Chapter 40. 

29 City of Gretna Code of Ordinances, Chapter 102. 

30 Plaquemines Parish Code of Ordinances, Appendix B. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-49

Figure 3-8. Future Study Area Generalized Land Use 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-50

Table 3-17. Existing Study Area Generalized Zoning 

Generalized Zoning Districts Total Acres Percent of Total

Business Core 111 0.5%

General Commercial 676 3.3%

General Offices 84 0.4%

Heavy Industrial 1,412 6.9%

Industrial 1,463 7.1%

Light Industrial 804 3.9%

Military 3,603 17.5%

Medical Services 11 0.1%

Neighborhood Commercial 315 1.5%

Office Warehouse 34 0.2%

Mixed Use 1,049 5.1%

Planned Unit Development 25 0.1%

Multiple Family Residential 588 2.9%

Two Family Residential 330 1.6%

Single Family Residential 6,350 30.9%

Rural/Single Family 3,685 17.9%

Unrestricted 21 0.1%

Total 20,56131 100%

Source: City of Gretna, Plaquemines Parish, Jefferson Parish, 2016 

Table 3-18. Relocation Corridor Generalized Zoning 

Generalized Zoning Districts Total Acres Percent of Total

General Commercial 7 0.1%

Heavy Industrial 420 8.1%

Industrial 1,158 22.3%

Light Industrial 480 9.2%

Military 8 0.1%

Mixed Use 49 0.9%

Multiple Family Residential 14 0.3%

Two Family Residential 1 0.0%

Single Family Residential 458 8.8%

Rural/Single Family 2,583 49.7%

Unrestricted 21 0.4%

Total 5,199 100%

Source: City of Gretna, Plaquemines Parish, Jefferson Parish, 2016

 

31 As this land use and zoning data originates from three different government units, the total acreage comprising the Study Area is slightly 

different in Table 3-16 and 3-17 (1 percent difference).
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-51

No-Build Alternative – Since there would be no improvements involved and existing rail lines 

would remain in use, there would be no requirements to change or update zoning as a result of 

the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative would have no impact on current industrial zoning 

applied within the Jefferson Parish portion of the Relocation Corridor. It could stimulate 

changes in the zoning applied in the Plaquemines Parish portion of the Relocation Corridor as 

there is a disconnect between current zoning and the future land use pattern illustrated in 

Figure 3-8. The pace of any zoning changes would be determined by the property owner in 

response to general market demands for the future land uses shown on the map. The timing 

and locations for such decisions remain subject to private sector decisions, but as seen in Table 

3-17, Table 3-18, and Figure 3-9, the areas of greatest potential change would be in the 

Plaquemines Parish portion of the Relocation Corridor where the majority of the area 

southwest of the NAS JRB facility remain zoned by Plaquemines Parish as Rural/Single Family. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-52

Figure 3-9. Existing Study Area Generalized Zoning 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-53

3.16 Community Facilities 

The Study Area contains over 200 community facilities ranging from public facilities, including 

government buildings and courthouses, to museums, medical facilities, and libraries. The less 

developed, more industrial Relocation Corridor has only five community facilities by 

comparison. Table 3-19 and Figure 3-10 summarize the number and location of community 

facilities within the Study Area and Relocation Corridor. 

Table 3-19. Community Facilities 

Community Facilities

No. of Community 

Facilities in the 

Study Area

No. of Community 

Facilities in the 

Relocation 

Corridor

Apparent Distance 

to Project

Cemetery 4 1 +/- 690 feet

Child Care Facility 21 - -

Church 76 4 +/- 250-1,000 feet

Civil/Administrative Facility 13 1 +/- 165-250 feet

Fire Department Facility 14 - -

Historical Site 4 - -

Hospital 4 - -

Jail/Detention Center 1 - -

Library 4 - -

Medical Facility 3 - -

Military Facility 1 - -

Museum/Cultural Site 4 - -

Nursing Home 2 - -

Park/Recreational Area 10 - -

Police Facility 13 - -

Post Office 3 - -

School 46 - -

Total Community Facilities 224 6 -

Source: USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), 2016 and field observation.

No-Build Alternative – If the NOGC Railway is not relocated, Study Area trains would continue 

to operate along 4th St/LA 18 through downtown Gretna and along LA 23. Residents utilizing 

community facilities throughout the Study Area would continue to hear and see freight trains 

traversing the corridor. Intersection congestion and delay would persist along these regional 

roadway networks and local streets alike, blocking access in some instances, to these facilities. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-54

Figure 3-10. Community Facilities Map 

Note, none of the community facilities identified in 

Table 3-19 or shown on Figure 3-10 are bisected by 

the apparent right-of-way of the preferred 

alternative.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-55

Build Alternative – No community facilities are bisected by the ROW of the Build Alternative. Of 

the six community facilities in the Relocation Corridor, the Verbo Christian Church (located at 

2855 Lapalco Boulevard, on the ramp between Lapalco Boulevard and Peters Road) and the 

Jefferson Parish Westbank Animal Shelter (2701 Lapalco Boulevard, on ramp between Peters 

Road and Lapalco Boulevard) are closest to the Preferred Alternative. Verbo Christian Church is 

approximately 258 feet east of the proposed rail line while the Jefferson Parish Westbank 

Animal Shelter is approximately 165 feet. Review of the noise analysis indicates both sites are 

outside of the area identified as receiving impacts from the Build Alternative (See Section 3.9.1., 

Noise). Vibration analysis results (See Section 3.9.2. – Vibration) also show that vibration 

impacts are not expected at either location under the Build Alternative. 

3.17 Demographics and Environmental Justice 

According to the US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2009-2014, the Study Area has a 

population of 109,480. The ACS shows that the Study Area features a diversity of races and 

ethnicities of people. It is 49 percent white and 37 percent Black or African American with the 

remaining 14 percent identifying as Asian, Multiple Races, or Other Races. Only 13 percent of 

the Study Area identifies as ethnically Hispanic. The median income is $40,997, while 22.2 

percent are below the poverty line. As Figure 3-11 identifies, the Study Area has a variety of 

population densities. It is of note that the Preferred Alternative would operate within an area of 

lower population, along Peters Road and south of the NAS JRB. Meanwhile, the existing 

alignment of the NOGC Railway travels through various pockets of medium and higher density 

populations. 

3.17.1 Census Geographies 

The census geographies that comprise the Study Area can be seen in Table 3-20 and 

Figure 3-12. 

Table 3-20. Census Geographies 

Parish Census 

Tracts

Block 

Groups Parish Census Tracts

Block 

Groups

Jefferson

250.01 1 to 4

Jefferson

258 1,2

250.02 1 to 3 259 1 to 3

250.03 1 to 3 260 1 to 3

251.02 1 to 3 261 1 to 3

251.03 1 to 3 262 1

251.04 1 to 2 263 1,2

252.01 1 to 2 278.03 1,2

252.02 1 to 4 278.04 1 to 4

253 1,2 278.05 1 to 3

254 1 to 3 278.07 1

255 1,2 278.12 1

256 1

Plaquemines 502 1 to 5

257 1,2 503 1 to 3
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-56

Figure 3-11. Population Density Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-57

Figure 3-12. Census Geography Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-58

3.17.2 Race and Ethnicity 

The racial and ethnic demographics of the Study Area are racially and geographically diverse. 

Some census block groups are categorized as almost entirely white while others are comprised 

almost entirely with minorities. Areas with apparent concentrations of minorities include: 1) in 

Jefferson Parish along both sides of the Harvey Canal south of Lapalco, 2) along both sides of 

the Westbank Expressway as it enters Orleans Parish, and 3) between the Harvey Canal and the 

Verret Canal. The percentages and distribution of minority races can be seen in Table 3-21 and 

Figure 3-13. 

Table 3-21. Study Area Demographics Compared to Local Parishes and Louisiana 

Race

Study Area Jefferson Parish Plaquemines 

Parish Louisiana

Number % Number % Number % Number %

White 53,750 49% 276,653 64% 16,310 69% 2,890,570 63%

Black 40,176 37% 115,490 27% 5,006 21% 1,477,781 32%

American Indian 523 <1% 2,302 <1% 397 2% 28,807 <1%

Asian 6,246 6% 17,851 4% 778 3% 75,409 2%

Pacific Islander 112 0.1% 154 <0.1% 0 0% 1,671 <0.1%

Multiple Races 

and Other 8,673 8% 22,078 5% 1,054 4% 126,811 3%

Total 109,480 100% 434,528 100% 23,545 100% 4,601,049 100%

Percent of 

Minority Races 51% 36% 31% 37%

Ethnicity Number % Number % Number % Number %

Hispanic 14,698 13% 57,335 13% 1,329 6% 210,524 5%

Non-Hispanic 94,782 87% 377,193 87% 22,216 94% 4,390,525 95%

Total 109,480 100% 434,528 100% 23,545 100% 4,601,049 100%

Source: US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year Estimates (2009-2014)
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-59

Figure 3-13. Minority Population Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-60

3.17.3 Income and Poverty 

Within the Study Area, there is a wide distribution of incomes and levels of poverty. Of the 26 

census tracts that intersect the Study Area, 14 contain a higher portion of their population in 

poverty than the Louisiana average of 19.6 percent. These census tracts are largely located 

adjacent to the Mississippi River and Orleans Parish with two other high poverty census tracts 

adjacent to the southern part of the Harvey Canal. Of the five census tracts through which the 

Preferred Alternative transverses, three have a poverty level above the national average. 

Similarly, those census tracts with fewer instances of poverty contain a higher level of median 

income. The census tracts with the highest levels of median income are located adjacent to the 

Mississippi River and Orleans Parish, while the three tracts with the lowest median income are 

located just south of the Westbank Expressway between the Harvey Canal and the Gretna city 

limits. The highest median incomes can be found surrounding the Stonebridge Subdivision near 

the Plaquemines Parish boundary. See Table 3-22 for additional data. Figure 3-14 and 

Figure 3-15 show median income and percentage poverty by census tract. 

Table 3-22. Study Area Income and Poverty 

Parish Study Area Census 

Geographies

Income Poverty

Median Household 

Income (dollars)

Percent of Individuals 

Below Poverty

Jefferson

Census Tract 250.01 $46,577 24.2%

Census Tract 250.02 $49,314 12.8%

Census Tract 250.03 $61,729 11.9%

Census Tract 251.02 $79,063 7.8%

Census Tract 251.03 $42,375 18.2%

Census Tract 251.04 $52,271 10.4%

Census Tract 252.01 $30,000 35.5%

Census Tract 252.02 $37,024 27.5%

Census Tract 253 $39,619 12.2%

Census Tract 254 $45,080 20.9%

Census Tract 255 $25,044 42.0%

Census Tract 256 $26,563 34.1%

Census Tract 257 $25,690 30.9%

Census Tract 258 $26,458 26.4%

Census Tract 259 $31,341 19.6%

Census Tract 260** $32,054 30.3%

Census Tract 261 $24,042 39.7%

Census Tract 262** $23,984 42.0%

Census Tract 263 $44,638 13.0%

Census Tract 278.03 $27,250 39.8%

Census Tract 278.04 $102,292 2.8%

Census Tract 278.05** $63,827 14.2%

Census Tract 278.07 $72,736 3.6%

Census Tract 278.12 $33,250 44.3%

Plaquemines Census Tract 502** $68,802 7.9%

Census Tract 503** $55,133 6.1%

Study Area Median/Average $40,997 22.2%

Source: US Census ACS 5 Yr (2009-2014). Tables S1903 and S1701.

Note: ** denotes Census Tracts through which the Preferred Alternative traverses
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-61

Figure 3-14. Median Income by Census Tract Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-62

Figure 3-15. Percentage Poverty by Census Tract Map 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-63

3.17.4 Environmental Justice 

Environmental Justice means ensuring that the environment and human health are fairly 

protected for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Executive Order 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations, February 11, 1994, and Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a)32

requires DOT agencies to consider how federally-assisted projects may have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income 

populations. This DOT Order provides guidance for consideration of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin or income. Specifically, this order mandates to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, 

including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 

What are disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on 

minority populations and low-income populations? 

Disproportionately high and adverse impacts are those which must be predominantly borne by 

a minority or low income population as determined by the following three factors (to the 

extent practicable): 

(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that 

significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority population, low-income 

population, or Indian tribe. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 

economic, or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian 

tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment; 

and 

(b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be 

having an adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes 

that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or 

other appropriate comparison group; and 

(c) Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population, lowincome population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards. 

How do we determine if there is a minority population present? 

A minority is a person who is: 

(1) Black (having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); 

(2) Hispanic (of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other 

Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); 

(3) Asian American (having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast 

Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or 

 

32 Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a). August 2011. Final DOT Environmental Justice Order. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/orders/order_56102a/index.cfm 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-64

(4) American Indian and Alaskan Native (having origins in any of the original people of 

North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or 

community recognition). 

A minority population is a readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in close 

geographic proximity to each other. The most common way to identify whether a minority 

population is present is to utilize census data collected by the US Bureau of the Census. The ACS 

surveys a portion of the US population and estimates population data based upon that survey 

information. This survey asks participants to identify themselves racially as one or more of the 

following: Caucasian or White, African American or Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or American 

Indian or Alaskan Native. Additionally, the census asks participants to identify themselves 

ethnically as either Hispanic or not-Hispanic. This data represents the most reliable 

demographic and income data available until the next decennial census in 2020. This 

Environmental Justice analysis was completed with the 2009-2014 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 

How do we determine if a low income population is present? 

Low income has been defined as a household with an income at or below the Department of 

Health and Human Service’s poverty guidelines. A low-income population is an area where an 

identifiable group of low-income people live in geographic proximity. Like the racial and ethnic 

information noted above, it is regularly collected by the US Bureau of the Census, and is 

available at the census block group level. The latest data set readily available for income at the 

block group level is from the American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates (2009-2014). 

What are the geographic boundaries? 

Block groups, which are subsets of census tracts, vary greatly in size, but they are the smallest 

geography for which racial, ethnic and economic data are readily accessible. Blocks are the 

smallest census geography available, but this racial, ethnic, and economic data are not 

accessible at this level. 

How do we establish a threshold? 

After the project’s geographic area is determined, the next step in the process is to determine 

the threshold for comparison, in order to assess whether there is a minority or low-income 

community present. 

One method of establishing a threshold is to use a larger geography, such as the parish or state 

in which the project resides for comparison. As seen in Table 3-23, the values found for the two 

parishes within the Study Area provide comparison for analyzing the presence of minority/lowincome populations in each census tract through which the Relocation Corridor passes. 

According to the 2014 ACS, Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish, respectively had 36 

percent and 31 percent of their populations categorized as a minority. Similarly, according to 

the 2014 ACS, Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish respectively had 16.8 percent and 13.7 

percent of their low-income populations (percentage of households below the poverty level) in 

2014. For comparison, both Parishes have a lower percentage of households in poverty and a 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-65

lower percentage of individuals reporting minority status as compared to the State of Louisiana 

as a whole for the same period. 

Table 3-23. Comparison Census Geographies 

Comparison 

Geography

Low Income Population Minority Status

Percent of Households with Income at or 

below Poverty Guideline

Percent of Minority Races

Study Area 20.2% 46.0%

Jefferson Parish 16.8% 36%

Plaquemines Parish 13.7% 31%

State of Louisiana 19.6% 37%

Source: US Census ACS 5 Year Estimates (2009-2014). S1701 and B2001

Using data found in the ACS for each Parish as a threshold for comparison, two of the ten 

census tracts within the Relocation Corridor had both higher percentages of minority and lowincome populations (defined as percentage of households below the poverty guideline) than 

found for all of Jefferson Parish: census tracts 262 and 278.12. In addition, one tract had a 

greater percentage of populations below poverty and another had a higher percentage of 

minority population than the Parish average. Table 3-24 presents the results of this threshold 

analysis. 

Table 3-24. Environmental Justice Considerations by Relocation Corridor Census Tracts 

Parish Relocation Corridor 

Census Geographies

Total Census Tract 

Population

Low-Income

Population

Minority 

Status

Percent of 

Households with 

Income at or below 

Poverty Guideline

Percent of 

Minority Races

Jefferson

Census Tract 260** 1,889 30.3% 28%

Census Tract 262** 1,312 42.0% 98%

Census Tract 263 2,601 13.0% 8%

Census Tract 278.05** 8,674 14.2% 74%

Census Tract 278.07 8,738 3.6% 35%

Census Tract 278.12 4,053 44.3% 88%

Plaquemines

Census Tract 502** 8,549 7.9% 11%

Census Tract 503** 4,622 6.1% 22%

All Relocation Corridor Census Tracts 101,196 20.2% 46%

Note: ** denotes census tracts through which the Preferred Alternative traverses

Source: US Census ACS 5 Year Estimates (2014-2009). S1701 and B2001

No-Build Alternative – If the NOGC Railway is not relocated, it would maintain its current path 

through urban, demographically diverse neighborhoods and along heavily trafficked local and 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-66

arterial streets. As the above existing demographic conditions analysis reveals, the Study Area 

as a whole contains proportionally more minorities (51 percent) than Jefferson or Plaquemines 

Parishes, as well as the state of Louisiana. Additionally, the Study Area as a whole contains 

proportionally more individuals below poverty than the state of Louisiana. The problems 

identified within the Project’s purpose and need (see Section 1.4) would not be remedied and 

these Study Area populations would continue to experience these problems. 

Build Alternative – As seen in Table 3-24, the Relocation Corridor contains eight census tracts 

and 101,196 people33. Of these eight census tracts, three have higher concentrations of lowincome individuals living below the poverty line as compared to the state average. Meanwhile, 

another three census tracts have a larger concentration of minority individuals than the state 

average. However, there are two census tracts that share these criteria: census tracts 262 and 

278.12. 

 

Census tract 263 is noteworthy as it contains the Preferred Alternative. In Jefferson Parish, the 

Preferred Alternative improvements would be constructed along an existing industrial corridor 

with future land uses designated as industrial in nature as well. Meanwhile, in Plaquemines 

Parish, the Preferred Alternative occurs through largely undeveloped areas and areas 

designated as Business Park and Mixed Use. 

Residents within the rest of the Study Area will benefit from reduced at-grade intersection 

crossing congestion and delay along with less noise and vibration. The potential adverse effects 

associated with the Preferred Alternative within the Relocation Corridor of visual obstruction 

and increased vibration would not be limited to these minority and/or low-income areas. These 

adverse impacts would be experienced along the entire corridor. Since the adverse impacts to 

minority and/or low-income households would not be disproportionately high and adverse, 

there are no Environment Justice concerns with the Preferred Alternative. 

3.18 Public Health and Safety 

On any given day, train traffic on either the Westwego or Belle Chasse Subdivision blocks 

roadways. The duration of the blockage varies based upon train length and speed. When 

blockages occur, this condition creates breaks in the roadway network, impeding travel 

between neighborhoods as well as within portions of the Study Area. 

3.18.1 Emergency Vehicle Response 

When trains pass through the at-grade crossings, this situation also blocks access by area 

residents to emergency services (EMS, police, and/or fire vehicles) from stations and facilities 

located away from Downtown and the Riverfront corridor in Gretna. The Gretna Fire 

Department’s main fire station (David Crockett Fire Station, 1136 Lafayette Street), the City’s 

Police Department (200 5th Street) as well as the closest regional general hospital to 

Downtown (Ochsner Medical Center, Westbank Campus, 2500 Belle Chasse Highway), are south 

of the Westwego Subdivision. During the periods when the 5 trains per day pass, they can block 

 

33 US Census ACS 5 Year Estimates (2014-2009) 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-67

an individual crossing for up to 21 minutes, given current speed and train composition 

information (see Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions). With an average train length of 

5,100 feet, trains traveling in this Subdivision can also block the majority of existing at-grade 

crossings simultaneously while traveling east within the City of Gretna and the 4th Street 

corridor, before their turn north toward Gouldsboro Yard. During this time, emergency 

responders caught in traffic can either wait the additional time for the crossing to open or 

choose to travel around to the closest open crossing. Either option adds significantly to the 

response time incurred by waiting residents for receipt of service. 

3.18.2 Vehicle and Pedestrian Interaction 

According to FRA accident data34 for Jefferson Parish for the period from 2003 to 2012, there 

were a total of 11 vehicular accidents reported involving NOGC trains and vehicles in the 

Westwego Subdivision. All of these accidents occurred along the 4th Street corridor between 

Dolhonde Street and Amelia Street and involved vehicle damages often created when drivers 

did not yield to the oncoming or moving train or sideswipes. The majority of these accidents 

appeared within the section of 4th Street where trains run in-street, with the intersections at 

Dolhonde Street and Derbigny Street being the locations where more than one incident 

occurred. One of the contributing factors to accidents is the presence of vehicles on 4th Street 

running in the opposing lane to the current in-street track or parked within designated spaces 

on shoulders or edges of the roadway. In more than one incident, the vehicle driver sited 

perception problems regarding distances between the operating train and their vehicle, created 

in-part by the current conditions. 

Within the same data, for the period 2001 to 2010, there were a total of 8 vehicular accidents 

reported involving NOGC trains at the grade crossing locations identified and examined in this 

study. As with those incidents within the Westwego Subdivision, the reported description of 

each appears to indicate a failure to yield to the passing train or train service equipment by 

motorists as a contributing factor to the incident. A cluster of accidents appeared near the 

Fairfield Avenue intersection located southeast of the Whitney Avenue/LA 23 intersection. This 

location has overhead signals, cross bucks with warning flashers and bells, but no crossing 

gates. 

There were no pedestrian accidents reported in either Subdivision at the locations examined 

during the periods for the data review. 

Due to the nature of the surrounding development pattern, combined with the general 

geography in reference to the Mississippi River, most of the crossings within the Westwego 

Subdivision east of the Harvey Canal occur at low-volume roadways. The number of vehicles on 

a daily basis does not exceed 2,500, with most traffic crossing 4th Street, as found on Derbigny 

and Dolhonde Street, generated by adjacent land uses. In the case of Derbigny and Dolhonde 

 

34 http://safetdata.fra.dot.gov. This document and the information contained herein is prepared solely for the purpose of identifying, evaluating 

and planning safety improvements on public roads which may be implemented utilizing federal aid highway funds; and is therefore exempt from 

discovery or admission into evidence pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 409. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-68

Streets, the demand to cross 4th Street follows the demand to access the campus of Jefferson 

Parish West Bank Government buildings (courthouse, jail and district attorney’s office) located 

in downtown Gretna between 4th Street and the Mississippi River. 

By comparison, locations with higher traffic volumes, like those along the Belle Chasse 

Subdivision, would have more vehicles passing across the NOGC Railway in a given day of 

operation. Heavier traffic volumes crossing this subdivision are less likely to encounter a train as 

this rail line has less frequently scheduled service than the Westwego Subdivision. The presence 

of a higher volume of traffic required that all at-grade crossings along LA 23 south of Gretna 

Boulevard employ a full suite of train crossing warning systems including overhead signals, 

cross bucks with warning flashers and bells, but no crossing gates. In addition, the traffic signals 

at these locations interconnect with the train crossing signals, allowing for unimpeded traffic to 

flow through the movements of the intersection not blocked by passing trains. 

No-Build Alternative – As part of the No-build Alternative, the NOGC Railway would remain in 

its current location. The issues identified previously with blocked street crossings throughout 

the Study Area when trains pass or assemble would remain. There would be no apparent 

improvement in overall public health and safety as emergency response conditions in the 

portions of Gretna crossed by the rail would not improve. Vehicle and pedestrian interactions 

would remain as described, with the potential remaining for accidents as trains cross through 

the City. Generally, the conditions described above would remain. 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative would reduce rail service in the Westwego 

Subdivision to those customers located west of Dolhonde Street. Continued rail service to the 

Perry Street Wharf is uncertain. Service along a portion of the Belle Chasse Subdivision would 

relocate to the Preferred Alternative corridor, removing the potential for rail to cross the 

various east-west streets with grade crossings in Gretna and along LA 23 extending to Walker 

Road. Within these limits, it is estimated that 97 public and private at-grade crossing would be 

eliminated. This reduction in at-grade crossings would create improved access to the area for 

emergency vehicles and potentially eliminate the need for emergency vehicle detours during 

periods of rail operations.

With the Build Alternative, trains would operate in a corridor with very few public at-grade

crossings. Only six new public highway-rail at-grade intersections would be required over the 

9.3-mile length of the rail relocation. These six intersections would be located where the 

Preferred Alternative crosses 4th Street, Peters Road (2-lane northbound), Gold Street, Peters 

Road (4-lane section), relocated Peters Road (near Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park), and at LA 23 

(between River Oaks Drive and Cedar Drive). The lack of public crossings means less impedance 

to access and traffic flow for emergency vehicles as a result of train operations. Each of these 

new public at-grade crossings would feature several safety warning signs and traffic control 

devices to aid drivers in navigating these crossings safely, which include overhead signals, cross 

bucks with warning flashers and bells, and crossing gates. These signs and traffic control devices 

would improve at-grade crossing and train visibility to motorists and pedestrians, which could 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-69

reduce the potential for vehicle/train or pedestrian/train incidents. See Appendix B, Sheets D-1 

through D-5.

While specific designs will be defined in later project development phases, the Federal Highway 

Administration standards35 for highway-rail at-grade crossings include several recommended 

safety features. All highway-rail at-grade crossings and low-volume road-rail crossings would 

include the Grade Crossing sign (Crossbuck) at the intersection and would include the Grade 

Crossing Advance Warning sign. Several other advance warning signs can be used to alert 

drivers of conditions (see Table 3-25). In addition to these signs, various on-street markings are 

recommended. These markings include stop lines, dynamic envelope pavement markings, and 

railroad pavement marking symbols. Figure 3-16 provides an example layout of safety devices 

for a highway-rail grade crossing. 

Table 3-25. Road-Rail Crossing Signage 

Recommended Signs

Grade Crossing sign

(Crossbuck)

Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning sign

Optional Traffic 

Control/Advance 

Warning Signs

Diagonal Crossing 

(W10-12)

Parallel Crossing 

(W10-3)

Stop Sign 

(if needed)

Yield Sign 

(if needed)

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. 

FHWA. 2009 Edition. Updated in 2012.

 

35 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. FHWA. 2009 Edition. Updated in 2012.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-70

Figure 3-16. Road-Rail Crossing Signage and On-street Markings Example 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. FHWA. 2009 Edition. Updated in 2012. Page 765. 

3.19 Contaminated Sites 

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (PI-ESA) was conducted for the Relocation Corridor 

utilizing selected procedures outlined in American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

Standard E 1527-13 to provide All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) into the Relocation Corridor and 

the scope of work tasks set out by the RPC. The objective of the PI-ESA is to identify whether 

any recognized environmental conditions (REC), as defined in ASTM Standard E 1527-13, are 

observed or suspected on or adjacent to the Relocation Corridor. A “recognized environmental 

condition” is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or 

petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past 

release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products 

into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the 

property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under 

conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include “de minimus” 

conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the 

environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought 

to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-71

The scope of work for this PI-ESA consisted of records review, site reconnaissance, and report.36

The PI-ESA included the following tasks: 1) Gather and review data for the Relocation Corridor 

from regulatory databases and records; 2) Review historic information sources for the 

Relocation Corridor; 3) Perform a field reconnaissance of the Relocation Corridor; and 4) 

Prepare a report with findings, opinions, and conclusions regarding impacts on the Relocation 

Corridor and how hazardous materials sites identified may impact the corridor alternatives. 

The standard environmental databases and records review consisted of a search for regulated 

facilities within the ASTM defined search distances from the Relocation Corridor. The search 

indicated the presence of 404 regulated facility sites within the Relocation Corridor. Sites which 

could potentially impact the future location of the railway were reviewed on the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Electronic Data Management System (EDMS). Out 

of the sites reviewed, a total of 10 sites were evaluated as potential RECs with regards to the 

future location of the railway. 

The well data indicated that there were three oil and gas wells within approximately 100 feet or 

less of the Preferred Alternative. It is possible that these wells will be encountered during the 

development and construction of the Preferred Alternative; therefore, the oil and gas wells 

nearest to the Preferred Alternative are considered potential RECs. 

A review of the historic topographic maps and aerial photographs indicated that the historic 

uses of properties within the Relocation Corridor and surrounding areas vary, including: 

undeveloped vacant land, developed areas for industrial/commercial facilities, developed areas 

for residential neighborhoods, canals, and major roads/highways. 

The site reconnaissance visit was conducted on February 12, 2016 and indicated the following 

potential RECs within the Relocation Corridor: aboveground storage tanks and fuel dispensers, 

industrial facilities (potential to use/treat/store/generate hazardous substances and/or 

petroleum products), drums and containers, and solid waste (landfill, junk automobiles, tires, 

and illegal dumping). 

For the sake of this investigation, any RECs identified within the Relocation Corridor were also 

evaluated based on their potential impact to the future location of the railway, i.e. the 

Preferred Alternative. Based on the findings of this report, the following RECs were identified 

and are shown on Figure 3-17: 

 Former Greif/Evans Cooperage – 1255 Peters Road, Harvey LA 

This adjoining site is likely to moderately impact the Preferred Alternative. This location 

has been in operation as an industrial facility since 1948 but has been closed and 

inactive since 2009. Portions of this location are currently in use as a storage yard. This 

facility primarily operated as a drum reconditioning plant that handled acid, poison, 

paint, flammables, and caustic materials on site. This facility underwent extensive 

 

36 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-72

remediation efforts in 2012 for contamination on site. A No Further Action 

determination for the contamination on site is currently pending LDEQ approval, and a 

conveyance notice will likely be filed. There will likely be environmental costs associated 

with any soil disposal from this location, given the extensive historic contamination on 

site. 

 Nabors East Property – 3645 Peters Road, Harvey LA 

This site is likely to minimally impact the Preferred Alternative. This location is currently 

unoccupied, but formerly operated as a sandblasting/painting facility and equipment 

laydown yard. This facility underwent remediation efforts for soil and groundwater 

contamination on site. A conveyance notice was filed for the area of interest on site as 

part of LDEQ’s requirements for a No Further Action determination. Soil within the area 

of interest will need to be managed in accordance with LDEQ restrictions or remediated. 

There will likely be environmental costs associated with any soil disposal from this 

location due to the conveyance notice filed for this location. 

 Goldin Industries – 4400 Peters Road, Harvey LA (Former Amsted-Plexco Lay-down Yard) 

This site is likely to significantly impact the Preferred Alternative. Asbestos 

contaminated soil is likely present throughout the site, and it is unknown whether 

portions of the site were formerly a Jefferson Parish sanitary landfill. Given the 

promiscuous dumping observed along the perimeter of the property, solid waste is likely 

present on site. Records indicate that this site was also used as a lay-down yard for oil 

well pipe; however, it is unknown whether the pipe was newly manufactured or used 

pipe for recycling. The use of a property as a laydown yard for drilling stem could cause 

the soil to be impacted with Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM), 

petroleum, or heavy metals. There will likely be environmental costs associated with any 

soil disposal from this location, and any asbestos contaminated soil encountered will 

require special handling and disposal procedures. 

 Promiscuous Dumping along Bayou Road, Harvey LA 

This site is likely to minimally impact the Preferred Alternative. Promiscuous dumping 

was observed along Bayou Road during the site reconnaissance. Materials included 

construction and demolition waste, junk automobiles, and tires. The area is heavily 

wooded; therefore, it is unknown if there are any releases of petroleum or hazardous 

substances. Depending on the materials encountered, there will likely be environmental 

costs associated with any soil and solid waste disposal from this location due to the 

promiscuous dumping observed in this location. 

 Oil/Gas Wells – Various Locations, Harvey LA 

These wells are likely to moderately impact the Preferred Alternative if they are 

encountered during development of the railway. These wells are registered as plugged 

and abandoned with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. There will likely be 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-73

environmental costs associated with any soil disposal from these locations if a well or 

reserve pit (used to temporarily store drilling fluids or dispose of wastes) is 

encountered. 

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative represents the continued existence of the 

current RECs within the Relocation Corridor. The No-Build Alternative does nothing to improve 

existing environmental conditions. Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing RECs identified in 

the PI-ESA would likely continue to have a negative effect on the Relocation Corridor and the 

potential for future development. 

Build Alternative – The impacts of the Preferred Alternative would be positive as RECs would be 

addressed and remediated by the track improvements. A Phase II Investigation is recommended 

to satisfy continuing obligations associated with the RECs identified in the PI-ESA. The majority 

of the RECs identified (Former Greif/Evans Cooperage, Nabors East Property, Promiscuous 

Dumping along Bayou Road) do not require a Phase II, but will have costs associated with 

disposal of contaminated soil and solid waste. The Former Amsted-Plexco Lay-down Yard and 

Oil/Gas Wells RECs require a Phase II Investigation based on the likely presence of asbestos 

contaminated soil, NORM, petroleum, heavy metals, and reserve pit contaminants. The Phase II 

investigation would be required prior to ROW acquisition. By remediating the RECs, the Build 

Alternative would have a positive effect on the Relocation Corridor and the potential for future 

development. The significant impacts of the Build Alternative would be to mitigate RECs and 

bring previously contaminated areas back into commerce. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-74

Figure 3-17. Location of REC Sites 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-75

3.20 Cultural Resources 

A Phase I survey of the Preferred Alternative was performed in an effort to satisfy 36 CFR 

§800.4 (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended 2000) 

requirements to identify historic properties that may be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. 

The survey followed the guidelines established by the Louisiana Division of Archaeology. Prior 

to the initiation of fieldwork, comprehensive background research was completed. This 

research revealed that portions of the Preferred Alternative had been surveyed during previous 

investigations. New investigations were concentrated on those portions of the Preferred 

Alternative that had not been surveyed previously; no resurvey was performed. Approximately 

4.69 miles, or 65.78 acres, of the Preferred Alternative required Phase I survey. For the 

purposes of the archaeological survey, the direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) was the same as 

the proposed right-of-way (ROW) of the Preferred Alternative. For the purposes of the 

architectural survey, an indirect APE was established. This indirect APE consisted of a 250-foot 

radius buffer of the direct APE. This is a standard indirect APE that is sufficient to address issues 

of proximity impacts and property view sheds. 

3.20.1 Archaeological Survey Methods 

Archaeological investigations consisted of pedestrian transects with shovel tests at 

standardized intervals. In areas that were considered high probability for archaeological sites, 

transects and shovel tests were spaced at 30 m (98.4 ft) intervals. In areas of low probability for 

sites, the intervals between transects and shovel tests was increased to 50 m (164.0 ft). In areas 

that contained numerous buried utilities, partially inundated areas, and areas of dense 

commercial and residential properties, investigations consisted of an intensive pedestrian 

survey with judgmental shovel testing. All shovel tests minimally measured 30 cm (11.8 in) in 

diameter and 50 cm (19.7 in) in depth. All excavated soils were screened through 0.25 in 

(0.64 cm) mesh hardware cloth. The soil characteristics and stratigraphic associations of all 

shovel tests were recorded. All tests were backfilled upon completion. Excavated soils were 

characterized utilizing the Munsell soil color system. 

Site delineation was undertaken at one previously recorded site. A site datum was established 

and additional shovel tests were excavated at 10 m (32.8 ft) gridded intervals. Site boundaries 

were defined by the excavation of two consecutive negative shovel tests along each line. 

Photographs were taken utilizing a high-resolution digital camera. A georeferenced site map 

was drafted. The site maps included the locations of all shovel tests, the extent of surface 

scatter, site limits, and any topographic features or landmarks visible. GPS data were collected 

with a Trimble GeoExplorer XT Series hand-held unit. A Louisiana Site Update Form was 

completed for the site, and the locations of the site was marked on the appropriate USGS 7.5’ 

quadrangle. The site was evaluated utilizing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria 

(36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-76

3.20.2 Architectural Survey Methods 

As noted above, the indirect APE for fieldwork consisted of 76 m (250 ft) buffer on either side of 

the defined direct APE. This indirect APE provides sufficient distance to address direct impacts 

from construction and indirect impacts, such as adverse effects to the view sheds of historic 

properties. For the survey, GIS technicians produced field maps of the area showing the direct 

and indirect APEs. These maps, along with the USGS 1951 and 1966 Betrandville and New 

Orleans, Louisiana 7.5’ quads were used to facilitate fieldwork. An architectural historian and 

assistant surveyed the entire direct and indirect APE by car, and on foot when necessary, and 

evaluated all structures to determine if they were of the appropriate age for recordation. Then, 

these structures were recorded with Louisiana Historic Resource Inventory forms and evaluated 

using NRHP criteria to determine potential eligibility for nomination to the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4 

[a-d]). 

An estimated construction date of 1969 or earlier was utilized during the evaluation of the 

standing structures. This adjustment provides an additional three years so that buildings that 

are approaching 50 years of age, and those that will be 50 years of age at the likely time of 

construction, are identified, and assessed. This limits the amount of additional survey work that 

could be required if the Project’s schedule is delayed. Thus, all structures considered to be at 

least 47 years of age were recorded and evaluated using NRHP criteria (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). Each 

structure was photo documented in the field using a Nikon D3000 SLR digital camera and a GPS 

point was taken using a Garmin with an accuracy of +/-8 m. All construction dates were 

estimated based on architectural styles, methods of construction, materials, and historic quad 

maps. All standing structures of sufficient age were recorded in the direct APE and the indirect 

APE. 

3.20.3 Archaeological Survey Results 

No new archaeological sites were recorded as a result of the survey. One previously recorded 

site, 16PL249, was revisited and delineated in terms of the proposed ROW of the Preferred 

Alternative. The site was recorded originally in 2012 during a survey by R. Christopher Goodwin 

& Associates, Inc. (Hale et al. 2012:93); however, the 2012 investigation recommended that the 

site was not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The current investigation did not resurvey the 2012 

site area and was concentrated on delineating the portion of the site that is crossed by the 

proposed ROW of the Preferred Alternative. All delineation shovel tests were negative. There is 

no evidence of intact archaeological deposits within the proposed ROW. 

Twenty large live oak trees were noted at 16PL249; eight of the oak trees are within the APE. 

Based on their size these oaks likely date to a colonial or antebellum plantation. Additional 

research found that by 1913 the property, including the oak trees, was part of Hero Park, an 

important early-twentieth-century recreational venue. 

There are buildings on the property, but most of these lie outside of the proposed ROW of the 

Preferred Alternative. The proposed ROW does cross the rear portion of one building. The 

structures are part of the River Oaks Academy, established by Judge Leander Perez in 1966. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-77

Based on the combined results of the archaeological survey and the architectural survey (see 

below), it was recommended that the boundaries of site 16PL249 be expanded to encompass 

the River Oaks campus and in the process subsume Hero Park. It is important to note that 

although the site size has increased, the presence or absence of archaeological deposits outside 

of the areas that have been shovel tested cannot be determined and have not been evaluated. 

It is clear that those portions of 16PL249 that have been shovel tested contain no intact 

archaeological deposits, such as midden or features. Therefore, the section of 16PL249 that was 

tested within the proposed ROW of the Preferred Alternative exhibits no research potential and 

can provide no additional data to address questions related to the history of the property as a 

plantation, a park, or a school campus. 

3.20.4 Architectural Survey Results 

During the survey, a total of 23 structures that are at least 47 years of age were evaluated and 

recorded. There was only one structure recorded in the direct APE, the former River Oaks 

Academy at 10911 LA 23. The remaining buildings are in the indirect APE. The 23 structures 

documented during fieldwork consist of nine residential use buildings, 13 commercial use 

buildings, and one former school (River Oaks Academy). The area is heavily industrial and the 

commercial buildings are scattered along LA 23 while the residential structures are grouped in a 

small subdivision in the northern portion of the Study Area. The residential structures consist of 

seven bungalows and two minimal traditional cottages. The commercial buildings are mostly 

large metal industrial buildings with smaller offices attached. The architectural pattern reflects 

the commercial and industrial use of the portion of the Study Area closest to Harvey Canal and 

LA 23. This area is lined with commercial buildings offering services such as diesel and gas 

services, mechanical supply for shipping, tug boat repair, and body shops. The former River 

Oaks Academy property exhibits qualities indicating it is eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

criteria A and B (36 CFR 60.4). The 20 live oak trees that were recorded at site 16PL249 are also 

contributing elements to the River Oaks Academy property. The remaining buildings are typical 

of their period and region and are not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

3.20.5 Conclusions and Recommendations 

No-Build Alternative – If the rail corridor is not relocated, there will be no effect on cultural 

resources in the Study Area. 

Build Alternative – Based on the results of the archaeological survey, the Project would have no 

effect on buried historic resources in the tested portion of the Preferred Alternative. Site 

16PL249, which is crossed by the Preferred Alternative, exhibits no intact deposits within the 

surveyed ROW. It is unknown if archaeological deposits associated with the site are extant 

outside of the tested ROW. This includes the possibility that there a deposits preserved beneath 

the school buildings and various concrete slabs and foundations at the site. The SHPO 

recommends archaeological monitoring during any ground disturbing activities at the 

remainder of the site, including the demolition of all or part of the former River Oaks Academy 

building that is crossed by the Preferred Alternative (see SHPO letter dated May 24, 2017 in 

Appendix F). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-78

It was determined that the River Oaks Academy property exhibits associative significance under 

NRHP criteria A and B (36 CFR 60.4). Criterion A is applicable due to the academy’s association 

with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the local impact of Federal mandated desegregation in 

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Criterion B is applicable due to the property’s association with 

Judge Leander Perez, Sr. Leander Perez, Sr. was an ‘ultra-segregationist’ and Plaquemines 

Parish’s political boss for almost four decades until his death in 1969. Although corrupt, Judge 

Leander Perez, Sr. was an incredibly important political figure in not only Plaquemines Parish 

history but also in local, state, and, quite probably, US history. His refusal to acknowledge the 

Federal decision to desegregate was reported nationally, and he was among the South’s leading 

segregationists. River Oaks Academy and five other schools constructed in 1966 were a 

deliberate attempt by Perez, Sr., to circumvent Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and 

subsequent rulings by the US Court of Appeals Fifth District (1966-1969), bringing the local and 

state politics of Plaquemines Parish and Louisiana into the national arena. The buildings that 

were part of River Oaks Academy are the only ones extant at any of the segregation schools 

established by Perez.

Also, there are 20 large live oak trees remaining on what was the academy campus (8 within 

the APE). The oaks are also part of the former Hero Park site, on which the academy was 

constructed. The Hero Park portion of the property is significant to the local history as an earlytwentieth-century park (is considered NRHP criteria A) (36 CFR 60.4). The property is no longer 

used as a park, but the trees contribute to the historic landscape. 

Demolition of one of the former River Oaks Academy buildings and the removal of five large 

oak trees located within the proposed ROW of the Preferred Alternative would have an adverse 

effect on the historic property. SHPO concurred with this determination on July 12, 2017 (see 

Appendix F). Appropriate mitigation measures and a guiding Memorandum of Agreement 

(Appendix G) were developed through consultation among the FRA, SHPO, and the impacted 

property owner. Mitigation measures include documenting the historic property in accordance 

with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards and installation of a historical marker. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-79

3.21 Recreational Resources 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (39 U.S.C. 303(c), Section 4(f)), 

declares that it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort be made to 

preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreational lands, wildlife 

and waterfowl refuges. Several existing parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities are 

located in the Study Area, but there are none located within the Relocation Corridor 

(Table 3-26 and Figure 3-18).

Table 3-26. Parks and Recreational Resources 

Parks and Recreational Resources Located in 

Study Area 

Located in 

Relocation 

Corridor

Bellevue Park* Yes No

Blackie Buras Park Yes No

Gretna Park Yes No

Harvey Park Yes No

Huey P Long Park Yes No

Martin Luther King Junior Park Yes No

Medal of Honor Park Yes No

Mel Ott Park Yes No

McDonoghville/Knights Corner Park Yes No

Oakdale Park* Yes No

Plaquemines Off Road Park Yes Yes

Richard Street Park* Yes No

JB Spencer Park Yes No

Terrytown Playground* Yes No

Woodlawn West Park* Yes No

Parks marked with an asterisk (*) locations where LWCF funding has been used, according to the US 

Department of Interior National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Listings by County, 

3/13/2017, http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.

Source: Jefferson Parish GIS, Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Plan and USGS GNIS Database, 2016.

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act (CFR Title 36, Chapter 1, Part 59) addresses 

recreational resources that are acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation Funds 

(LWCF), such as parks, recreation areas, swimming pools, and public restrooms. Although 

several parks in the Study Area include facilities improved with LWCF funds, there are no 6(f) 

properties located within the Relocation Corridor. 

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would maintain service in the current corridor. 

Impacts would remain on those facilities adjacent to the corridor. This includes the park and 

recreation facilities located adjacent to the railroad line imbedded in Madison Street at the 

McDonoghville/Knights Corner Park (700 Monroe St) and adjacent to the rail line parallel to LA 

23 at Mel Ott Park (2301 Belle Chasse Highway) in the City of Gretna.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-80

Build Alternative – If the Preferred Alternative is constructed, the new NOGC alignment would 

not physically impact any known parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife sanctuary. Additionally, 

no existing parks or recreational facilities would have any visual impacts from the Preferred 

Alternative. Martin Luther King Junior Park and Harvey Park are the closest parks in the Study 

Area to the preferred alignment, but are still respectively 1,200 and 1,500 feet away. The only 

park located within the Relocation Corridor is the Plaquemines Off Road Park, but it is located 

approximately three-quarters of a mile from the Project and would not be impacted. 

Parks and recreational activities would benefit from the Preferred Alternative through the 

removal of many of the existing at-grade crossings within Harvey, Gretna, unincorporated 

Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish. In general, the Preferred Alternative would improve 

access to the parks and recreational facilities currently available in the Study Area. In particular, 

a portion of the proposed remnant parcel right-of-way at the northern edge of the Project is 

proposed to be developed as a neighborhood park/green space. This proposed recreational 

feature would be located south of 4th Street in the block bounded by Peters Road, Gold Street, 

and St. Joseph Lane. The neighborhood park would represent a context sensitive solution 

intended to minimize impacts to the adjacent neighborhood while providing benefits to its 

residents. RGPC commits to constructing the neighborhood park while Jefferson Parish would 

be responsible for maintaining the park (e.g., mowing and pruning). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-81

Figure 3-18. Location of Parks and Recreational Resources 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-82

3.22 Energy Resources 

This section discusses potential effects of the alternatives on energy resources, specifically fuel 

consumption for both trains and vehicles. 

The current NOGC route on the Westwego Subdivision up to Algiers and then back down the 

Belle Chasse Subdivision along the Belle Chasse Highway is approximately 16 miles. Traffic 

delays and slowdowns in downtown Gretna, at numerous at-grade public road crossings, and 

during switching operations at Gouldsboro Yard, contribute to high fuel consumption for both 

the railway and motor vehicles. 

No-Build Alternative – The current route is 6 miles longer than the Preferred Alternative and 

has significantly more public at-grade road crossings, which results in higher vehicle delays and 

fuel consumption than the Preferred Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, the NOGC 

would remain in its current location and no improvements to energy consumption would occur. 

Build Alternative – The Preferred Alternative shortens the NOGC route by approximately 

6 miles, which results in fuel savings from mileage and idling reductions. The Preferred 

Alternative also significantly reduces the number of public at-grade crossings, which results in 

fewer vehicle delays and lower fuel consumption due to decreased idling. 

3.23 Visual Resources

Visual resources relate to the aesthetics of the Study Area. This section includes how views in 

the Study Area could change after construction of new railroad and abandonment of the old 

route. 

Residents of Gretna, Terrytown, Harvey, and Belle Chasse who live or work near LA 18/4th 

Street, in downtown Gretna, and near LA 23/Belle Chasse Highway regularly view railroad 

tracks and passing trains within the existing NOGC Railway (refer to Figure 1-2, Study Area 

Overview Map).

In the northern portion of the Relocation Corridor, north of the GIWW, the Peters Road corridor 

is primarily an industrial area. Residences located in the first few blocks south of 4th Street near 

St. Joseph Lane view the backs of businesses located along LA 18/4th Street and Peters Road 

and passing trains along the existing NOGC railway along LA 18/4th Street (refer to plan view 

shown on Sheet A-1 in Appendix B). Some of the out-of-service track from the Hooper Spur can 

currently be seen along Peters Road as shown in Figure 3-19. The existing view along Peters 

Road includes restaurant/bars, warehouses, gas stations, automobile and truck repair supplies 

and shops, vacant sites, floodwalls, bridges, shipyards, waste management facilities, cranes and 

other heavy machinery along the Harvey Canal, utility infrastructure, and few trees. The 

industrial nature of the Peters Road corridor is not expected to change either with or without 

the Project. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-83

Figure 3-19. View of Hooper Spur Track on Peters Road (view facing south) 

In the central section of the Relocation Corridor, a residential area is located on Peters Road at 

the Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park adjacent to the FMT Shipyard (refer to plan view shown on 

Sheet A-6 in Appendix B).

In the southern portion of the Relocation Corridor, south of the GIWW near the NAS JRB 

property, the area is mostly undeveloped but is expected to become developed in the future 

with the construction of the Peters Road Extension project. As these vacant, vegetated areas 

are developed, the landscape will likely include more urban features such as driveways, 

buildings, signs, and billboards. The density and type of development will depend on 

Plaquemines Parish zoning and permitting decisions. 

No-Build Alternative – If the railway is not relocated from the current railway route, views from 

downtown Gretna and Belle Chasse Highway would continue to include the railroad tracks and 

passing trains. Opportunities for improving the aesthetics of the streetscape (e.g. planting 

trees, improving sidewalks, adding bike lanes) along the existing rail corridors would be limited. 

The industrial nature of the Peters Road corridor is not expected to change. The Peters Road 

Extension project will shift Peters Road away from Hassel’s RV and Trailer Park and the old 

Peters Road will become a service road. South of the GIWW near the NAS JRB property, the 

area is expected to become developed in the future with the construction of the Peters Road 

Extension project. 

Build Alternative – If the railway is relocated, views from downtown Gretna and Belle Chasse 

Highway would include fewer or no passing trains, depending on location. At some point in the 

future, railroad tracks could be removed in areas where the train would no longer be operating, 

and roadways, such as in downtown Gretna, could be made safer and more visually appealing 

to pedestrians and bicyclists. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-84

With the Preferred Alternative, the views in the Relocation Corridor would include new tracks 

and passing trains. Since Peters Road is primarily an industrial area, the rebuilt train tracks 

would not be a significant change to existing aesthetics. 

To improve the views for the residential area in the first few blocks south of 4th Street on St. 

Joseph Lane, the Build Alternative includes a proposed neighborhood park that would be 

located just south of 4th Street to the east of the proposed curve in the rail alignment. 

Depending on cost effectiveness to be determined in the design phase, a 10-foot noise wall 

may be built to separate the neighborhood from the track, which would block views of the 

passing trains. If the noise wall is not cost effective, the park could still have a decorative wall or 

landscape screening to dampen the visual and audible effect of passing trains. 

3.24 Construction Impacts 

3.24.1 Construction Impacts 

Construction activities associated with the installation of the new railroad line, at-grade 

crossings, associated rail bridges and rail yard construction along with the relocation of the 

Peters Road corridor within the Preferred Alternative would create environmental impacts. 

These are generally short-term in nature and controlled, minimized or mitigated using 

established construction methods or staging of improvements in order to maintain site access 

during construction. Temporary impacts associated with driveway closures at individual 

businesses along Peters Road may include disruption to property access for employees, 

customers and deliveries. Other impacts generally include traffic disruption, an increase in 

noise, vibration and dust, opportunities for erosion and sedimentation into adjacent canals and 

waterbodies. 

All construction activities would occur in a manner consistent with applicable Federal, state and 

local laws governing safety, health, sanitation, erosion control, and site security. These activities 

would include measures which are reasonably necessary to protect workers and the general 

public from harm during the process of project construction. Staging of all materials required 

for the Project would occur in secure locations which assure easy access to the construction 

site. 

3.24.2 Traffic

Construction activities would accommodate all local and through traffic along Peters Road and 

Engineers Road, Peters Road Extension, Belle Chasse Highway, and 4th Street as well as to 

address marine traffic needs on the GIWW and Harvey Canal. Opportunities to utilize and 

schedule construction during periods without heavy or peak traffic will occur in order to 

minimize delay for traffic during peak commute periods. Coordination with the US Army Corps 

of Engineers (as operators of the GIWW locks at Algiers and the Harvey Canal) along with local 

officials and maritime interests will help establish guides for use in establishing the construction 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-85

schedules associated with bridge construction and channel modifications, as well as to provide 

notification of upcoming activities which might limit traffic operations on these waterways. 

Plans to maintain traffic operations during construction would be developed as part of final 

design plans for the Project. These maintenance of traffic plans will be presented to LADOTD 

and receive input from appropriate personnel in Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes. It is 

anticipated that the maintenance of traffic plans would include measures such as temporary 

road or lane closures, detours and phasing/staging of construction where necessary to 

minimize potential short-term access inconveniences associated with the Project. Information 

on local schedule of improvements shared with local officials will go to the media and regional 

traffic operations personnel. This coordination will allow the general public to have the 

opportunity receive word of pending closures or detours prior to their installation. 

3.24.3 Noise and Vibration 

Noise and vibration generated by the process of construction from trucks, pile drivers and other 

equipment used to build or resurface roadways, demolish adjacent structures, install railway 

components and crossings remains anticipated. The area is within an established industrial 

zone. Noise and vibration emanating from this area is not uncommon. However, the 

introduction of the additional construction noise and vibration possible from the Project may 

create some impact on the adjacent sensitive receivers, including the various residential homes 

located east of the Preferred Alternative alignment. The presence of noise will depend of the 

types of activities occurring in the Relocation Corridor associated with the Project, along with 

the distance of these noise origin points from the sensitive receptors. The range and duration of 

noise and vibration depends on the characteristics of the construction equipment, schedule, 

season, weather and types of activities occurring in the Relocation Corridor. Expected phases of 

construction include clearing, excavation, demolition, utility relocation, drainage construction, 

bridge construction and embankment development. Noise and vibration impacts, including pile 

driving and compaction of embankments during construction would be temporary, with control 

measures employed to reduce these impacts. 

3.24.4 Water Quality

Construction impacts to water quality would be temporary and would be minimized by using 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), consistent with state and local standards. Water quality 

degradation as a result of stormwater runoff is expected to be minimal since stormwater 

management rules are strict and mitigation for this type of impact would be provided. Water 

quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation would be controlled in accordance 

with standard construction practices and through the use of BMPs. During project construction, 

potential short-term increases in sedimentation, water turbidity, and chemical pollutants due 

to unexpected spills or discharges could occur, but are expected to have insignificant impacts 

on wetlands and water quality. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-86

3.24.5 Air Quality 

Air quality impacts would be short-term and would primarily be in the form of exhaust 

emissions from trucks and construction equipment as well as from fugitive dust from 

construction sites. Most of the trucks and other equipment involved in construction activities 

would be diesel-powered. Construction vehicle emissions would not be significant compared 

with the emissions from other truck and automobile traffic in the area. Detours and other 

delays in traffic during construction typically result in local increases in vehicle emissions. These 

impacts would be minimized by following standard construction practices as well as state and 

local regulations. 

3.24.6 Construction Waste 

Removal of wastes from the site of construction will occur on a regular basis. This includes, but 

is not restricted to, materials and wastes generated during clearing, grubbing, milling and other 

activities. Disposal of these materials will occur at designated facilities and in a manner 

approved by state and local regulations. Litter and general trash would be collected and 

disposed of at landfill locations. Sanitary waste generated at the site removed by approved 

third party vendors will be disposed of in a manner approved by state and local regulations. 

3.24.7 Utility Service 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require some adjustment, relocation or 

modification of existing public utilities along Peters Road as well as within the vicinity of atgrade rail and road crossings at 4th Street and at Belle Chasse Highway. Utility coordination for 

the Project will employ methods including phased relocation or modification to minimize 

interruptions in utility service. All modifications, relocations or adjustments would remain 

subject to coordination with the affected utilities. 

3.24.8 Borrow Pits and Spoil Sites 

Only approved borrow materials would be utilized within the Project. Borrow activities 

providing fill for the development of the proposed rail embankment will only occur as allowed 

under permit in conformance with Federal, state or local regulations. Evaluation of sites for 

borrow activities will incorporate input of Federal and state agencies as necessary. Early 

coordination and consultation will allow for evaluation of potential borrow sites to determine if 

they are satisfactory for use. Prior to the start of borrow activities, all required permits for this 

activity, including evidence of mitigation or control plans for potential adverse environmental 

impacts. 

Any excavated materials deemed to be unnecessary or above what is required for the specific 

task will be disposed of in a manner consistent with Federal, state and local regulations. There 

is no allowance for disposal of excavated materials into wetlands and waterways. After the 

completion of borrow pit operations, water would not be allowed to pond or gather. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-87

3.25 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

3.25.1 Secondary or Indirect Effects 

Secondary or indirect effects are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 

for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Part 1500 as: 

“...caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced 

changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water 

and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR Section 1508.8)”

In the case of the Build Alternative, the Preferred Alternative results in the construction of a 

new rail line within the Relocation Corridor adjacent to the Harvey Canal and Peters Road. 

Table 3-27 provides a summary of secondary impacts associated with the Build Alternative for 

the elements of the human and natural environment. Following the summary table is a general 

overview of the context associated with the secondary or indirect effects expected with this 

alternative. 

Table 3-27. Summary of Direct and Secondary Impacts – Build Alternative 

Evaluation Criteria Units Direct Impacts Secondary Impacts

Human Environment Considerations

Future (2040) Train Volumes in the 

Study Area Description

Up to 13 trains per day in the

Relocation Corridor; year 

2040 projection

Improved access to regional rail 

gateway, port and market facilities

Navigation Impacts Description New swing span bridge on the 

GIWW (new crossing location)

Requires commitment to ongoing 

operations and maintenance of new 

bridge over the GIWW

Flood Control Project Impacts Description

Impacts to the Boomtown 

Floodwall and Mississippi 

River levee avoided because 

the relocated rail ROW >15 

feet from the floodwall/levees

Maintains flood control benefits 

enjoyed by the Study Area

Public Health and Safety Description

Number of new highway-rail 

public at-grade crossings 

reduced significantly (6 total); 

traffic control devices 

proposed to improve visibility 

and safety at new crossings

Potential reduction in vehicle, 

pedestrian and rail 

crashes/incidents associated with 

rail operations

Highway-Rail Public 

At-grade Crossings Number 6 new; 2 relocated

Spot congestion possible in corridor 

when trains pass through at-grade 

crossings

At-grade Private Crossings Number 90

Diminished access to private 

property as a result of passing 

trains. Time of access limitation 

would depend on train length and 

speed.

Total At-grade Crossings Number

98 along Preferred Alt 

alignment; 97 eliminated 

along existing alignment

Introduction of rail-created delay or 

impedance to business access along 

the eastbank of the Harvey Canal 

from Peters Road
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-88

Evaluation Criteria Units Direct Impacts Secondary Impacts

Parking and Access Description

Undesignated parking within 

the Hooper Spur ROW would 

no longer be available

Potential inconvenience to

businesses due to reduction of

available undesignated parking

within the rail ROW

Residential Relocations Number 2 None anticipated

Business/Industrial Relocations Number 10 Reduction of employment and 

potential work sites in area

Socioeconomic Conditions Description

Introduction of rail service 

increases access, leading to 

economic development and 

growth

Improved access, growth in 

employment and need for public 

services

Air Quality Impacts Description

Reduced traffic delay and 

idling would decrease criteria 

pollutant motor vehicle 

related emissions

Improvement in overall emissions 

associated with traffic operations in 

the Study Area and Relocation 

Corridor

Noise Impacts 

(without noise walls)

Description

Noise impacts on north, 

center, and southern 

segments of alignment The addition of rail noise in area 

already receiving noise from 

industrial, maritime and military 

operations in the area

Number of 

Residential 

Units 

Impacted

107 (Moderate Noise Impacts) 

0 (Severe Noise Impacts)

Vibration Impacts Yes/No No Impacts None anticipated

Land Use and Zoning Description

Consistent with existing land 

use and zoning along Peters 

Road, Consistent with future 

land use in Plaquemines

Consistent with vision for future 

land use identified by local 

government

Environmental Justice Yes/No No Impacts None anticipated

Recreational Resources: 4(f) and 

6(f) Properties Number

One 4(f) property requiring 

mitigation; 

No 6(f) properties

None anticipated

Community Facilities Description

Fewer community facilities 

are located along the more 

industrial Relocation Corridor

None anticipated

Cultural Resources Description

Adverse effect on the former 

Hero Park/River Oaks 

Academy site

None anticipated

Visual Resources Description

Rail relocation would not 

significantly change the 

aesthetics of the industrial 

Relocation Corridor

None anticipated

Natural Environment Considerations

Floodplains Description

Project includes filling, 

grading, new bridges and 

culverts, and other activities

within the floodplain. Impacts 

would be minimized and 

mitigated during the 

permitting, design and 

construction phase. 

None anticipated
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-89

Evaluation Criteria Units Direct Impacts Secondary Impacts

Wetlands and Waters of the US

within the Coastal Zone Acres 53.2 acres

Loss of potential habitat to support 

species development

Prime Farmland Yes/No No Impacts None anticipated

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Description No Adverse Impacts anticipated

Loss of potential habitat to support 

species in area

Energy Resources Description

Lower NOGC freight rail fuel 

consumption due to 6-mile 

shorter route; lower motor 

vehicle fuel consumption due 

to reduced idling at fewer atgrade public road crossings

None anticipated

Water Quality Description No Impacts

None anticipated – addressed as 

part of the project permits, 

mitigation and commitments.

Water Bodies and Waterways Description Includes bridge crossings to 

avoid impacts to waterways

None anticipated – new bridges 

over existing waterways not 

expected to impede water flow

Contaminated Sites Description

Recognized environmental 

conditions (primarily 

contaminated soil) would be 

addressed and remediated

None anticipated

Remediation employed as 

applicable during corridor 

development activities

Historically, the area containing the Relocation Corridor has been a heavy industrial zone for 

both Jefferson Parish and a portion of Plaquemines Parish. Institution of rail service in this area 

returns service which remained active in the area during its period of initial development during 

the mid 20th Century as part of the post-World War II industrial boom. In 2005 following 

Hurricane Katrina, rail service along the UPRR Hooper Spur ceased. Constructing a new rail will 

improve service efficiency for the NOGC Railway as well as minimize opportunities for conflict 

created by rail traffic in the Belle Chasse Subdivision within the City of Gretna and along Belle 

Chasse Highway. 

The secondary or indirect effect of the Build Alternative in Jefferson Parish includes the reintroduction of direct rail service within the industrial area along Peters Road as part of the 

Build Alternative. Effects of this decision to offer rail services with the Preferred Alternative 

could include an increase in property acquisition along the Peters Road corridor to support the 

growth in industrial activities allowed in the area within Jefferson Parish’s current land use plan 

and zoning ordinance. The effect of increased land occupancy and industrial development in 

the corridor would be a change in the density of employment in the area, along with an 

associated increase or change in vehicle traffic associated with the movement of employees, 

goods and services. Introduction of the railroad may mitigate any of the future increase in 

truck-based freight movement associated with increased land occupancy and industrial 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-90

development by providing an efficient alternative for the movement of raw materials and 

finished products between industrial and business sites along the Harvey Canal and customers 

in the region or nationally (via continued rail transport or by barge or ship from the Port of New 

Orleans). 

An increase in employment and business activities on the Harvey Canal is likely to be 

incremental in nature, driven by demands associated with the private market. However, this 

activity may be facilitated through ongoing regional economic development initiatives, as well 

as the general improvement or change in economic fortunes occurring in Southeast Louisiana. 

An indirect effect of increased employment along the Harvey Canal and Peters Road would be 

an increased demand for municipal services and facilities which cater to the general 

community. In addition, some change in residential population may occur as workers in the 

area choose to settle in adjacent neighborhoods to remain close to their jobs. Again, this would 

be an incremental change which would be largely determined by market or individual decisions. 

An indirect effect of the introduction of rail service might be a higher frequency of blocked 

driveways for industrial sites along the west side of Peters Road during periods when trains 

travel along the corridor. The majority of businesses along the western edge of Peters Road 

between 4th Street (LA 18) and Murphy Canal remain engaged in maritime or marine 

fabrications/coatings businesses, which are typically shift-based with defined periods for 

employee arrival and departure. Although these sites do not typically generate an ongoing 

stream of traffic movements related to employee arrival and departure, random movements to 

facilitate product and material deliveries do occur. Interruptions in deliveries might require 

businesses in this area to adopt a standard delivery schedule in consultation with the NOGC in 

order to minimize access interruptions. 

The secondary or indirect effects of the Build Alternative in Plaquemines Parish would likewise 

include a change in land use to include a higher number of acres developed to support business 

and industrial uses. The impact of the adjacent NAS/JRB operation would be to maintain a 

character of development which decreases opportunities for high-rise or residential 

development in the areas west of the rail corridor and adjacent to the base. Given the vast 

number of acres and their location in reference to the region, the rate of land absorption could 

be much lower than along the Harvey Canal, but could get a jumpstart as a result of regional 

efforts to market the lower portions of the Mississippi River corridor for a variety of regional 

industrial and port development activities. 

The indirect effect of increased employment along the Peters Road corridor in Plaquemines 

Parish would be an increase demand for municipal services and facilities which cater to the 

general community. In addition, some change in residential population may occur as workers in 

the area choose to settle in the Belle Chasse area to remain close to their jobs. Again, this 

would be an incremental change which would be largely determined by market or individual 

decisions. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-91

3.25.2 Cumulative Impacts

The definition of cumulative impacts defined by the Council on Environmental Quality is: 

“...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from minor by collectively 

significant actions taking place over a long period of time” (40 CFR Section 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts associated with the Project come as a result of the combination of direct 

and indirect/induced effects resulting from the Project as well as the combined effect from 

other projects (past, present and future) occurring (but not related) to the Project. The 

development of this analysis followed an eight-step evaluation process intended to provide a 

logical method for evaluating cumulative effects of the Project. The evaluation looks at the 

health of the resource, defined in terms of its health, which refers to the general overall 

condition, stability or vitality of the resource, given the information obtained at the time of 

study as documented in this EA. 

The eight steps used in the evaluation process include: 

Step 1: Identify Resources to Consider 

The first step in the cumulative effects analysis is to identify which resources to consider in the 

analysis. If a project will not cause direct or indirect impacts on a resource, it will not contribute 

to a cumulative impact on that resource. The cumulative impact analysis should focus only on 

those resources most impacted by the project or resources currently in poor or declining health 

or at risk even if project impacts are relatively small. Given the results shown in Table 3-27, a 

cumulative effects evaluation was completed for cultural resources, noise/vibration, wetlands,

and floodplains for the following reasons: 

 Cultural Resources – The consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts is required 

when applying the criteria of adverse effect on historic properties (36 CFR §800.5(a)(1). 

 Noise/Vibration – The potential for moderate noise impacts to 107 residences. 

 Wetlands – The potential to impact up to 53.2 acres of wetlands. 

 Floodplains – The Preferred Alternative alignment would be constructed and operated 

within the 100-year floodplain. 

Although there are some direct and/or indirect impacts associated with Parking and Access, 

Residential and Commercial Relocations, and At-Grade Crossings, these topics were not part of 

the cumulative effects analysis for the following reasons: 

 Parking and Access – Impacts to parking and access are not expected to result in 

significant community disruption or displacement. 

 Residential and Commercial Relocations – The number of residential (2) and 

business/industrial relocations (10) is not expected to result in significant community 

disruption or displacement. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-92

 At-Grade Crossings – Overall, the Project is expected to have a net positive benefit to 

public safety and energy resources associated with changes in locations to at-grade 

crossings. 

Step 2: Define Study Area for Each Resource 

The review of cumulative impacts considered both geography and time. A defined area for the 

review appears in the discussion of each resource. The Study Area helps to characterize each 

resource, and to determine the potential cumulative impact on the health of the resource. The 

temporal limits used for assessment of past, present and future actions extends from 2010 to 

2040 (which corresponds to the start of the rail service). 

Step 3: Describe the Current Status/Viability and Historical Context for Each Resource 

The historical context and health of each resource appears within the discussion of each 

individual resource. The information establishes the baseline condition and trends or activities 

which the resource is experiencing in order to estimate the magnitude of resource effect. 

Step 4: Identify the Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Project 

This step identifies the direct and indirect effects resulting from the proposed project that 

might contribute to the cumulative impact, when added to non-project related effects. Direct 

and indirect impacts (evaluated based upon guidance found in 40 CFR 1508.8) also appear for 

each resource in Table 3-27. 

Step 5: Identify Other Reasonably Foreseeable Effects 

A review of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions appears in Table 3-28. This 

provides a context for the types of development projects that helped to create the current 

health of the resource, or might play a role in influencing the trends which lead to an effect. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-93

Table 3-28. Summary of Past, Present and Future Actions 

Past (2010-2014) Present (2015-2017) Future (2017-2040)

Widening of the Huey P. Long Bridge 

over the Mississippi River (2013)

USACE Hurricane and Storm Damage 

Risk Reduction System, West Bank and 

Vicinity Projects:

Periodic levee lifts along the GIWW, 

Mississippi River and other canals in 

area in accordance with USACE

schedule (as determined based upon 

evaluation of protection given the 

rates of subsidence)

USACE Hurricane and Storm Damage 

Risk Reduction System, West Bank and 

Vicinity Projects:

 Levee lift along the GIWW and 

Mississippi River (2015-> )

 Construction of Harvey Canal 

Floodwall (2012-14)

 Levee lift along the GIWW 

between Belle Chasse and 

Jefferson Parish (parallel to 

Engineers Rd) (2016-> )

Completion of Peters Road Bridge and 

Road Project (Bridge over GIWW) 

(State Project H.008244.6)

 Construction of the West 

Closure Complex (2012)

Construction of Peters Road Bridge 

and Road Phase I (State Project 

H.008244.6, 2016)

Construction of Harvey Boulevard 

Extension (Peters Rd to Manhattan 

Blvd) (State Project H.007208)

 Completion of levee lifts in 

Belle Chasse along Hero Canal 

(2013-14)

Acquisition of right-of-way for Peters 

Road Bridge (State Project H.08068, 

2016)

Widening of Harvey Boulevard 

(Manhattan Blvd to Wall Blvd) (State 

Project H.007223)

Construction of the ramps between 

Peters Road and Westbank 

Expressway (State Project H.009933.6,

2016)

LA 23 Belle Chasse Tunnel and Bridge 

Project (State Project H.004791)

Plaquemines Parish Port, Harbor and 

Terminal District and American Patriot 

Holdings, LLC announce agreement 

(on 5/22/17) to develop container 

port on the lower Mississippi River

Sources: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New Orleans Division: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/HSDRRS.aspx; 

Section 3.1.4. Flood Control Projects and Figure 3-7; New Orleans Public Belt Railroad: http://www.nopb.com/; Louisiana DOTD: 

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov; New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (MPO): http://norpc.org; Plaquemines Port, Harbor and 

Terminal District http://www.portofplaquemines.com/announcements/APH-Announcement-2; August 2017. 

Step 6: Identify and Assess Cumulative Impacts 

The analysis considered the direct and indirect effects of the Project, together with the past, 

present and future actions shown in Table 3-28. 

Step 7: Report the Results 

Summarized results appear within the review of individual resource evaluations. 

Step 8: Assess the Need for Mitigation 

Opportunities for mitigation of adverse effects, where applicable, are discussed for each 

resource. This would disclose steps or actions that could be undertaken by local, state and 

Federal agencies and organizations to minimize potential cumulative effect on each resource 

health and trend. 

3.24.2.1. Cultural Resources 

Resource Study Area: For the purposes of this analysis, the resource Study Area 

includes the Relocation Corridor as defined on Figure 1-2. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-94

Historic Context and Current Health: As noted previously in Section 3.19, Cultural 

Resources, a Phase I survey of the Preferred Alternative was performed in an 

effort to satisfy 36 CFR § 800.5 (a)(1) (Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended 2000) requirements to identify and 

mitigate the effects that the Project may have on potential cultural resources. 

The survey followed the guidelines established by the Louisiana Division of 

Archaeology. Comprehensive background research revealed portions of the 

Preferred Alternative had been surveyed during previous investigations, with 

new investigations concentrated on those portions of the Preferred Alternative 

that had not been surveyed previously. 

The archaeological survey concluded the Project would have no effect on buried 

historic resources within the tested ROW and no additional archaeological 

investigations are recommended within the tested ROW. Archaeological 

monitoring is required for subsurface disturbance, including building demolition, 

outside of the tested ROW. 

The architectural survey determined that the proposed wye intersection passes 

through property once home to Hero Park and the River Oaks Academy that 

exhibits associative significance under NRHP criteria A and B (36 CFR 60.4) 

(Section 3.19, Cultural Resources). Currently, a millwork business occupies two of 

the Academy’s original buildings. 

Generally, the condition of the site is good, given that the pace and depth of 

residential and commercial development in Belle Chasse has not reached this 

area. Other the millwork business, the remaining grounds appear in use as an 

outdoor storage area complete with piles of lumber and overgrown vegetation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Construction of the Project will have a direct effect on 

site, as it would require one existing building and vegetation be cleared, and 

ground disturbed in order to allow for rail bed construction. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions: The area subject to this 

review within the wye intersection is adjacent to the Mississippi River levee 

system. This may require regular access across the property (with the owner’s 

permissions) to allow for completion of levee inspections and maintenance 

activities. These type of activities would not result in excavation at the site, as fill 

for levees comes from areas away from the River identified and managed by the 

USACE for such purposes. 

Results: Based on the level of analysis completed, certain aspects of the 

Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to a resource protected by Section 

4(f): the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site. Completion of additional 

investigation at the site, as reviewed and confirmed with the SHPO, indicate that 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-95

the River Oaks Academy is eligible for nomination to the NRHP under Criterion A 

and Criterion B while Hero Park is eligible for nomination to the NRHP under 

Criterion A (36 CFR §60.4). This impact is unavoidable due to the location of the 

Preferred Alternative and requirement to connect the relocated line to the 

existing railway which extends north and south along LA 23. 

Mitigation: Mitigation is required for the site, subject to the terms agreed to 

with input from the SHPO (see Memorandum of Agreement in Appendix G). 

3.24.2.2. Noise and Vibration 

Resource Study Area: For the purposes of the analysis, the noise and vibration 

resource Study Area is the same as that of the Cultural Resources, the Relocation 

Corridor. 

Historic Context and Current Health: As the land areas around the Preferred 

Alternative develop, this is likely to contribute to a higher ambient noise level in 

the Project vicinity. These levels would be consistent with that attributed to the 

types of development found in industrial areas. Exceptions would be found 

during periods when trains pass, which would include noise from train horns at 

the at-grade crossings as well as the vibration generated by passing locomotives 

and rail cars. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects of the Build Alternative would include 

moderate noise impacts at 107 receivers. Additional noise could occur in the 

area as a result of future development. In these instances, the creation of noise 

by these associated developments would potentially be an indirect effect of the 

proposed Project, as it could be one of many reasons for the development. 

Additional vibration, particularly from construction period foundation/piling 

work in the area of the Relocation Corridor would also be possible because of 

the Preferred Alternative. However, like associated noise impacts, the conditions 

that create the need for this activity are not directly or indirectly attributable to 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions: It remains reasonable 

that as land areas develop in the Relocation Corridor adjacent to the Build 

Alternative that associated noise and vibration levels would continue to grow. 

Results: The cumulative effect of the Build Alternative would include moderate 

noise impacts at 107 receivers. There are no vibration impacts associated with 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Mitigation: Mitigation for noise effects will be determined in final design and will 

be based on cost effectiveness, given FTA/FRA policies and guidelines. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-96

3.24.2.3. Wetlands and Waters of the US 

Resource Study Area: For the purposes of this analysis, the resource Study Area 

includes the Relocation Corridor as defined on Figure 1-2. 

Historic Context and Current Health: The Build Alternative crosses the following 

waterways: Bayou Barataria, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and Bayou 

Barriere. The GIWW is a 3,000-mile commercial waterway along the Atlantic 

Coast and Gulf Coast and is not a designated historic river or scenic stream.

Bayou Barataria forms part of the common drainage canal network serving areas 

of Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes on the north side of the GIWW. Bayou 

Barriere forms part of the drainage canal network service the Belle Chasse Area 

of Plaquemines Parish. Both of these bayous connect through drainage pump 

stations. Neither of these waterways are a designated historic river or scenic 

stream. 

According to NWI data, the Build Alternative would impact 53.2 acres of 

potential wetlands. Wetlands identified include areas around streams and at 

water crossings as well as larger areas of contiguous wetlands on private 

property. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: The Build Alternative would bridge two waterways 

used for drainage and the GIWW. Bridges constructed as part of the Build 

Alternative would have no effect on the accompanying waterway. The bridge 

over the GIWW would be subject to approval and permit by the US Coast Guard 

with no indirect impacts expected. 

The Build Alternative would have a direct effect on potentially 53.2 acres of 

wetlands. The proposed project will enhance opportunities for development, 

which would be also be potentially subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA 

in areas where wetlands are present. As a result, indirect impacts to wetland 

areas are not expected. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions: As areas in the 

Relocation Corridor develop to accommodate new buildings or improved 

highway connectivity, potential wetland areas could be encountered. Roadways 

developed through a joint Federal/State process, managed by the Louisiana 

Department of Transportation or the New Orleans Regional Planning 

Commission (as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO) would be 

required to identify potential wetland impacts, permit requirements and 

potential mitigation measures to address project impacts. Where applicable, 

these areas would be also subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA in areas 

where wetlands are determined to be present by the USACE. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-97

Results: The Build Alternative has the potential to impact 53.2 acres, based upon 

the review of NWI data used, but the final number of acres impacted requires 

completion, submittal and approval of jurisdictional determination through the 

USACE. 

Mitigation: Impacts to wetland areas will be determined in final design, subject 

to the outcome of the jurisdictional determination process based upon the 

USACE guidelines. If federally funded, the Project will comply with Executive 

Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, both dated May 24, 1977. 

3.24.2.4. Floodplains 

Resource Study Area: For the purposes of this analysis, the resource Study Area 

includes the Relocation Corridor as defined on Figure 1-2. 

Historic Context and Current Health: As shown on Figure 3-1, the Preferred 

Alternative would be constructed and operated within the 100-year floodplain 

having flood zone risk levels ranging from low to high. These areas are also 

behind levees and subject to drainage conditions including pumping of ground 

water runoff from the drainage canals into the Harvey Canal and GIWW. 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Potential impacts to floodplains based on the 

Preferred Alternative alignment include filling, grading, new bridges and culverts, 

and other activities. The exact impact from this activity remains unknown until 

the development of Project design. Coordination and review with local 

floodplain administrators (as requested by FEMA) would help to address 

potential effects of the project. The Project would be subject to local ordinances 

regarding development in floodplain areas. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions: All new development in 

the area would be subject to the same coordination steps identified for this 

Project. This would include coordination with local authorities and obligation to 

follow local ordinances when proposing new development. Investments made in 

the levee and drainage system as well as those proposed for the future will be 

part of the evaluation of floodplain locations, base flood elevations and potential 

mitigation. 

Results: Adverse cumulative effects from development of this Project to 

floodways and floodplains are not anticipated. This Project, as well as other 

developments which would occur in the future in this area, would be subject to 

local ordinance regarding development in the floodplain and coordination with 

floodplain managers during project design. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-98

Mitigation: At the present, mitigation would be determined in final design, 

subject to the coordination request made by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) during initial Project SOV (FEMA SOV response, 

May 12, 2015). If federally funded, the Project will comply with Executive Order 

11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, both dated May 24, 1977. 

3.26 Summary of Permits, Mitigation, and Commitments 

This section describes the permits, mitigation, and commitments associated with the 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative for the Project, which were based on responses to 

the Solicitation of Views (SOV) requests and other sources as noted. A summary of the SOV 

package and responses are included in the Agency Scoping Meeting Memorandum.37 The future 

project sponsor would be required to obtain all necessary approvals and environmental permits 

for the Project before construction during the final design phase. Additional Federal, state, 

and/or local permitting requirements and commitments may be identified during future phases 

of the Project. 

3.26.1 Permits Not Required 

Farmland Protection Policy Act. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated that 

proposed construction areas are within urban areas and therefore exempt from the rules and 

regulations of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (USDA SOV response, May 12, 2015). 

Sole Source Aquifer Program. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) indicated that 

the Project does not lie within the boundaries of a designated sole source aquifer and is not 

eligible for review under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1424 Sole Source Aquifer 

Program (USEPA SOV response, May 14, 2015). 

Air Quality. Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes are classified as attainment with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and have no general conformity determination 

obligations (LDEQ SOV response, June 9, 2015). 

3.26.2 Required Permits 

The future project sponsor would be required to obtain the following permits prior to 

construction: 

Stormwater Permit (Section 402). Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the purpose of 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program is to control pollution generated 

from runoff associated with industrial activity, including construction. The Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) requires stormwater general permits for 

 

37 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-99

construction areas equal to, or greater than, one acre (LDEQ SOV response, June 9, 2015). Prior 

to construction, the Project permittee will be required to submit an application for a general 

permit for construction activities to LDEQ. 

Coastal Use Permit. Since the Project would be located within the Louisiana Coastal Zone, a 

Coastal Use Permit (CUP) would be required from the Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources (LDNR) Office of Coastal Management (OCM). The US Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) Section 404 permit application also serves as a Joint Permit Application for the CUP. 

Water Quality Certification (Section 401). Section 401 requires a state certification that a 

discharge to waters of the United States complies with other provisions of the Clean Water Act. 

The Project permitting will be required to obtain a Section 401 Permit (Water Quality 

Certification) from the LDEQ’s Office of Environmental Services (LDEQ SOV response, June 9, 

2015). The USACE Section 404 permit application also serves as an application for water quality 

certification. 

Wetlands/Waters of the United States (Section 404). The Project permittee will be required to 

obtain a permit for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE New Orleans District. 

The Section 404 permit will establish the conditions of mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional 

wetlands within the Study Area. 

Section 10 Permit. The USACE administers Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899, 

which regulates dredging and filling in “Navigable Waters.” A USACE Section 10 permit will be 

required prior to any work in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and if the Project 

proposes to deposit any dredged or fill material into canals or other waterways. 

Section 408 Request. Given the Project’s proximity to Federal levees, the USACE has indicated 

that the Project would require a Section 408 (alteration of USACE civil works projects) review by 

the USACE. The Regulatory Branch cannot issue a Section 404/Section 10 permit until the 

Section 408 Request has been approved.

Levee Permit. The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-West (SLFPA-W) requires a 

levee permit for any construction involving major excavation within 1,500 feet of any levee 

within SLFPA-West’s jurisdiction.

Section 9 Coast Guard Bridge Permit. The US Coast Guard (USCG) administers Section 9 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and issues bridge permits over navigable waters. The Project 

would include a navigable waterway crossing that requires a moveable bridge over the GIWW. 

Based on coordination with the USCG, the GIWW crossing would require a USCG permit. A 

USCG permit would not be required for waterways that are not being used for navigation and 

have no potential for navigation such as Murphy Canal, Bayou Barataria, and Bayou Barataria; 

however, a formal determination of non-navigability from the USCG would be obtained for 

these waterways at the time of the permit application. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-100

Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Project Review. On October 19, 2016, 

the USFWS Louisiana Field Office concurred with FRA’s determination of “is not likely to 

adversely affect” for the Atlantic sturgeon and pallid sturgeon. Additional consultation with 

resource agencies during the permitting phase prior to construction may be needed to confirm 

that there would be no impacts, since changes to habitat and listed species could occur prior to 

construction. If nesting bald eagles are discovered, federal and state guidelines for avoidance 

and minimization will be followed. If Project activities will occur within a 660-foot radius of a 

nest site, coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries will be required. 

Floodplains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requested that the 

communities’ floodplain administrators be contacted for the review and possible permit 

requirements for the Project (FEMA SOV response, May 12, 2015). If federally funded, the 

Project will comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 

11990, Protection of Wetlands, both dated May 24, 1977. 

Pipelines and Other Underground Hazards. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

(LDNR) Office of Conservation indicated that oil, gas, and/or injection wells are located in the 

vicinity of the Project. The LDNR water well database indicates that there are registered water 

wells (and possible unregistered wells) in the vicinity of the Project. For pipelines and other 

underground hazards, Louisiana One Call must be contacted prior to commencing construction 

operations (LDNR SOV response, May 22, 2015). 

Utilities and Drainage. During preliminary and final design, representatives of Jefferson Parish 

and Plaquemines Parish will be consulted relative to coordination between the Project and 

each jurisdiction’s master plan for utilities and drainage.

Louisiana Sanitary Code. The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) Office of 

Public Health indicated that the Project must comply with applicable Louisiana Sanitary Code 

regulations (DHH SOV response, May 13, 2015). 

3.26.3 Commitments and Mitigation Measures 

The following commitment and mitigation measures would be implemented during future 

implementation phases of the Project including permitting, design, construction, and postconstruction phases. If FRA funding is used to construct the Project, FRA would require the 

future project sponsor to comply with these commitments and mitigation measures. 

Visual Resources. As part of the Project, NOGC Railway would develop a neighborhood park 

that would be located just south of 4th Street on the east side of Peters Road. The 

neighborhood park is proposed as a context sensitive solution. Jefferson Parish would be 

responsible for maintaining the park (e.g., mowing and pruning). 

Noise and Vibration. FTA/FRA guidance does not require noise mitigation for moderate noise 

impacts; however, strategies for reduction of noise impacts (e.g. noise walls, wheel truthing, 

etc.) may be implemented during final design if determined to be cost effective. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-101

In order to minimize the potential for impacts of construction noise on local residents, all 

construction equipment used in the construction phase of the Project will be properly muffled 

and all motor panels shut during operation. Whenever possible, the contractor will operate 

during regular daytime working hours. To minimize vibration impacts, peak particle velocities 

due to pile driving operations will be monitored with a seismograph at critical structures, 

pavements and utilities during all pile driving operations. 

Cultural Resources. FRA determined that the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site is eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and SHPO concurred with FRA’s 

determination on July 12, 2017 (see Appendix F). FRA determined the Project, if constructed 

with financial assistance from FRA, will have an adverse effect on the Hero Park/River Oaks 

Academy site due to the destruction of five oak trees associated with Hero Park and a former 

plantation and demolition of one of the two River Oaks Academy buildings. Appropriate 

mitigation measures and a guiding Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix G) were developed 

through consultation among the FRA, SHPO, and the impacted property owner. Mitigation 

measures include documenting the historic property in accordance with Historic American 

Building Survey standards and installation of a historical marker.

Wetland Mitigation. Prior to permitting and design activities, the future project sponsor would 

be required to conduct an on-site field investigation to delineate the full extent of waters of the 

United States within the Project’s right-of-way in the southern portion of the Study Area 

generally between the GIWW and the Mississippi River Levee/Highway 11 and to make a 

proposed jurisdictional determination. The USACE would make the final jurisdictional 

determination for waters of the United States and define the appropriate mitigation 

requirements for the Project. 

Plant and Wildlife Habitats. During the permitting phase, regulatory agencies would be 

consulted to determine whether monitoring and/or site specific measures to protect sensitive 

species or habitat during construction are warranted (such as protective fencing). Locations of 

any sensitive plant and wildlife species would be mapped on construction drawings. Areas 

where vegetation would need to be temporarily removed or disturbed for construction would 

be re-vegetated as quickly as possible with native vegetation. 

Stormwater. As noted by LDEQ in its response to the Solicitation of Views (SOV), all precautions 

to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities and to protect the 

groundwater of the region would be observed (LDEQ SOV response, June 9, 2015). Best 

management practices would be implemented to control soil erosion. 

Contaminated Sites. If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater 

contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the Project, notification to 

LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact is required. Additionally, precautions would be taken to protect 

workers from these hazardous constituents during construction (LDEQ SOV response, June 9, 

2015). The Project’s right-of-way includes a vacant wooded parcel that was once used as a lay‐
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 3-102

down yard for a former asbestos pipe coating facility that included an asbestos disposal site. 

Asbestos contaminated soil was abated in 1986; however, it is likely that there is residual 

asbestos contaminated soil that would require special handling and disposal procedures. 

Air Quality. To minimize potential air quality impacts, particularly related to control of 

particulate matter, the construction contractor shall comply with all relevant Federal, state, and 

local laws and regulations. 

Traffic and Public Safety. Traffic management plans would be developed during the final design 

phase of the Project to address and minimize public safety risks and potential traffic delays. 

Temporary traffic control zones and devices would be implemented in accordance with FHWA’s 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways38 to adequately 

and safely accommodate all local and through traffic. Construction operations would be 

scheduled and sequenced to minimize traffic and rail delays. Prior to construction, information 

on construction schedules throughout the Study Area would be provided to local emergency 

response organizations. 

Relocations. Business/industrial and residential relocations will be addressed in accordance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended. 

 

38 http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-1 

4.0 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluation 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the existing Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. §303) and Section 6(f) (36 CFR §59) 

resources within the Study Area as well as the potential impacts on these resources resulting 

from the Preferred Alternative (defined in Section 2.0 Alternatives along with the No-Build 

Alternative). 

Data reviewed for this chapter came from the previous chapters/sections of this environmental 

assessment (as referenced in parenthesis), as well as the Tier I Alternatives Analysis Screening 

Evaluation, Tier II Alternatives Analysis Screening Evaluation and the Phase I Cultural Resources 

Survey and NRHP Research for the LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation PE/NEPA 

Document. 

4.2 Section 4(f) Regulatory Context39

Under the policy established in the US Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303 (c), 

the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project (other than 

any project for a park road or parkway under 23 U.S.C. §204) requiring the use of publicly 

owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, 

or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as 

determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, 

refuge, or site) only if 

1. There is no feasible or prudent alternative to such use and the project includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting from such use; or 

2. A finding can be made that the project as a whole has a de minimis, or minimal, impact 

on the Section 4(f) resource. This provision allows avoidance, minimization, mitigation 

and enhancement measures to be considered in making a de minimis determination, 

which is defined in 23 CFR §774.17 as: 

a. For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis

impact is one that would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or 

activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) 

b. For historic sites, de minimis impact means that the FRA has determined, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800 that no historic property is affected by the project 

or the project would have “no adverse effect” on the property in question40

A Section 4(f) use is defined and addressed in 23 CFR § 774.17. A use of Section 4(f) 

property occurs: 

 When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 

 

39 Definitions in Section from Section 4(f) Tutorial, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/section4f/use_types.aspx#2 

40 Section 303, Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites, 49 U.S.C. §303 (c) (Subtitle I – Department of 

Transportation, Chapter 3 – General Duties and Powers, Subchapter I – Duties of the Secretary of Transportation). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-2 

 When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute's 

preservation purpose as determined by the criteria in §774.13(d); or 

 When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property as determined by the criteria 

in §774.15 

4.2.1 Permanent Use 

With this type of use, the Section 4(f) property is permanently incorporated into the proposed 

transportation facility. This use could occur as a result of full or partial acquisition or through 

easements for transportation-related purposes. Although within the easement the underlying 

ownership of the land may remain with the original owner, the transportation owner or 

operator acquires a permanent interest in the use or maintenance of some portion of the 

property that disrupts its Section 4(f) function. 

4.2.2 Temporary Use 

During the construction of a transportation project, a temporary occupancy of a Section 4(f) 

property may be necessary for activities such as regrading slopes or to provide staging or access 

areas. Depending upon conditions, such activities, even though temporary in nature, may be 

considered adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) statute’s preservation purpose, and therefore 

would be considered a Section 4(f) use. Examples of temporary uses include contour 

alterations, removal of mature trees and other vegetation, or disruption of facilities or activities 

on the property. Once the easement is no longer needed, the Section 4(f) property must be 

restored to the condition in which it was originally found. This restoration may involve regrading or re-vegetating the area. 

4.2.3 Constructive Use 

Constructive use involves an indirect impact to the Section 4(f) property of such magnitude as 

to effectively act as a permanent incorporation. The project does not physically incorporate the 

resource but is close enough to it to severely impact important features, activities or attributes 

associated with it, and to substantially impair it. Constructive uses include impacts such as 

noise, access restrictions, vibration, ecological intrusions and visual impacts. 

4.2.4 Section 4(f) Applicability 

A historic site on, or eligible for the NRHP, qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) and a use 

may occur if land from the site is permanently or temporarily incorporated into the project. If a 

project does not physically take (i.e. permanently incorporate) historic property but causes an 

adverse effect, FRA must evaluate the proximity impacts if they will substantially impair the 

features or attributes that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the historic site. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-3 

4.3 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund41

Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act contains provisions to 

protect Federal investments and the quality of assisted resources. The law recognizes the 

likelihood that changes in land use or development may make some assisted areas obsolete 

over time, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas. At the same time, the law discourages 

casual "discards" of park and recreation facilities by ensuring that changes or "conversions from 

recreation use" will bear a cost—a cost that assures taxpayers that investments in the "national 

recreation estate" will not be squandered. The LWCF Act contains a clear and common sense 

provision to protect grant-assisted areas from conversions.42 Conversion of park and recreation 

facilities purchased using LWCF funds to non-recreation uses must include coordination with 

the National Park Service (NPS) and mitigation that includes replacement of the quantity and 

quality of lands used. 

4.4 Purpose and Need 

Vehicular and train traffic is projected to increase within the Study Area due to normal growth 

in population and NOGC-projected increases in level of industry.43 Highway-rail traffic conflicts 

have an adverse impact on the Westbank community including both residential and 

employment populations. These impacts include safety, congestion, mobility, and quality of life 

issues. A full description of the purpose and need is presented in Section 1.0 Purpose and Need. 

The Project’s purpose and need is to: 

 Improve safety

 Relieve congestion 

 Improve emergency access and evacuation 

 Enhance quality of life 

 Improve efficiency of rail operations 

4.5 Definition of Alternatives 

4.5.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative includes all existing rail facilities utilized by the NOGC, without any rail 

improvements. This includes the existing Gouldsboro Yard in Gretna and the existing NOGC 

Maintenance Yard in Belle Chasse, connected with existing track within the Westwego 

Subdivision, parallel to 4th Street (LA 18) and the Belle Chasse Subdivision, parallel to Belle 

Chasse Highway (LA 23), with its 119 at-grade rail crossings (See Section 2.2 and Figure 2-4). 

 

41 Title 36, Chapter 1, Part 59, US Code of Federal Regulations, Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of Assistance to 

States 

42 https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/protect.html 

43 Vehicular traffic projections based on LADOTD Historic Traffic Count Data and RPC Travel Demand Model 2040 and 2044 

Network. Refer to the Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions, July 2015 and Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build Conditions 

(2040), December 2015 (available from the RPC upon request). Train traffic projections based on NOGC railway estimates. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-4 

Under the No-Build Alterative, construction of a new rail line would not occur and all existing 

facilities would remain in-use. 

4.5.2 Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative extends from 4th Street (LA 18) to LA 23 for approximately 9.3 miles. 

From north to south, the Preferred Alternative generally follows a southeastern route along 

and parallel to existing Peters Road and the proposed Peters Road extension. After crossing the 

GIWW, the route curves around the southern end of the NAS JRB and then crosses LA 23 to 

meet up with the existing NOGC track (Figure 4-1). Connection to the Belle Chasse Subdivision 

would occur on the east side of LA 23 with a wye44 connection. Benefits associated with the 

Preferred Alternative include potentially eliminating 97 at-grade crossings on the existing NOGC 

route and reducing the number of public at-grade crossings from 73 to 6. 

The Preferred Alternative alignment would require the reconstruction of a 1.65-mile section of 

Peters Road between Lapalco Boulevard and Murphy Canal. A 6,000-foot (1.14-mile) segment 

of Peters Road would be reconstructed from Lapalco Boulevard to the south side of the 

proposed Harvey Boulevard Extension. A shorter segment of Peters Road would be constructed 

on new alignment. The limits of new construction extend from just south of the proposed 

Harvey Boulevard Extension to just south of the Murphy Canal crossing; a distance of 

approximately 2,700 feet or 0.51 mile (See Section 2.7). 

 

44 Railway tracks arranged in the form of a “Y” that are used for turning locomotives and rail cars in the opposite direction.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-5 

Figure 4-1. Preferred Alternative 

4.5.3 Overview of Preliminary Alternatives 

As outlined in the Tier I and Tier II Alternatives Analyses, the project started with a wye 

connection to maintain connection with the existing NOGC Railway parallel to LA 23. The wye 

included a single track extending north to the Belle Chasse Yard, and a single track extending 

south to tie into the existing NOGC railway continuing south to Myrtle Grove, LA. 

Options identified in the Tier I and Tier II analyses focused on defining locations for the rail 

corridor which would minimize impacts across the Relocation Corridor. 

As shown on Figure 4-2, the Tier I Alternatives Analysis identified four conceptual alignment 

options. The Tier I analysis resulted in the elimination of Options 1 and 4, and the portion of 

Option 3 from 4th Street south of Lapalco Boulevard where it connects to Option 2, for the 

following reasons: 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-6 

 High cost is the primary fatal flaw associated with Option 1. The high cost is a result of

the three required movable bridges on the GIWW, Harvey Canal, and Bayou Barataria. 

Option 1 also has the highest number of potential total impacted or intersected 

properties and business/industrial relocations. 

 The impact to the residential area along St. Joseph Lane is the primary fatal flaw 

associated with Option 4. The Option 4 alignment traverses St. Joseph Lane for 

approximately 2,200 feet or 0.4 miles. 

 A portion of Option 3 from 4th Street to south of Lapalco Boulevard, where it connects 

to Option 2, was eliminated because it traverses near a residential area from US 90B to 

Lester Street and then requires extensive grade separation and a bridge structure 

starting near St. Joseph Lane extending to south of the West Bank Animal Shelter tract. 

Eliminating these options left Option 2 in its entirety and the southern portion of Option 3 

starting near the Peters Road and Murphy Canal crossing. The commonality between Options 2 

and 3 allowed them to be recombined and refined into two preliminary alternatives in the Tier 

II Alternatives Analysis. 

As outlined in the Tier II Alternatives Analysis, two preliminary alternatives, shown in Figure 4-3, 

were evaluated. The alignment associated with Preliminary Alternative A is depicted in yellow, 

while Preliminary Alternative B is shown in magenta. Both contain the wye rail intersection 

Figure 4-2. Conceptual Alignment Options
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-7 

introduced in the Tier I Alternatives Analysis options, with an acknowledgement that a decision 

to grade-separate LA 23 at the rail line intersection might occur in the future. 

Figure 4-3. Preliminary Alternatives A and B (North and South) 

Southern portion of corridor

Northern portion of corridor
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-8 

A brief description of each of the preliminary alternatives follows: 

Preliminary Alternative A: 

• Located on the west side of Peters Road following the abandoned Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR) Hooper Spur track until Lapalco Boulevard. 

• Crossing Peters Road immediately south of Lapalco Boulevard and continuing south 

through undeveloped parcels of land adjacent to Murphy Canal. 

• Crossing the GIWW and continuing to LA 23 south of the NAS JRB. 

Preliminary Alternative B: 

• Located on the east side of Peters Road on new alignment southward to US 90B. 

• Crossing into an undeveloped, utility corridor parallel to Pailet Avenue extending south 

to Lapalco Boulevard. 

• Continuing south through undeveloped parcels of land adjacent to Murphy Canal. 

• Crossing the GIWW on a different alignment compared to Alternative A and continuing 

to LA 23 south of the NAS JRB. 

An initial assessment of the preliminary alternatives, presented to the public on September 22, 

2015 included the identification of the following general analysis outcomes that led to 

identification of Alternative A as the corridor with potentially less impacts and the basis for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

• Potential impacts on residential areas – Alternative B would have a greater impact on 

residential homes near Pailet Avenue between US 90B and Lapalco Boulevard, as well as 

on several subdivisions located between Murphy Canal and Bayou Barataria. At-grade 

crossings – Alternative B would create 21 new highway-rail at-grade crossings at public 

streets compared to 5 for Alternative A. 

• Crossing US 90B – Alternative A would cross under US 90B within the existing UPRR 

Hooper Spur ROW, while Alternative B would result in a three-level crossing. Depending 

on the horizontal location and length of the Harvey Canal Tunnel crossing, the structural 

integrity of the Harvey Canal Tunnel may need to be evaluated. 

• Crossing Lapalco Boulevard – Alternative A would cross under the Lapalco Boulevard 

bridge within the existing UPRR Hooper Spur ROW, while Alternative B would require an 

extensive embankment section/bridge structure (approximately 6,000 feet long) to 

cross over Lapalco Boulevard and the Westbank Animal Shelter property. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-9 

4.6 Section 4(f) Properties 

This section identifies the Section 4(f) resources present within the Study Area. It includes a 

discussion of the potential impacts to these resources as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 

The discussion of potential impacts remains a preliminary assessment with the expectation that 

further design will work to minimize impacts to these sites. 

4.6.1 Parks and Recreation Sites 

As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-4 (See Section 3.20 Recreational Resources), the Study Area 

contains 15 parks and recreation facilities. Only one of these (Plaquemines Off-Road Park) is in 

the Relocation Corridor. It is approximately 2,100 feet south of the Preferred Alternative. There 

would be no apparent impact to the use of and access to this facility created by the Project. 

Table 4-1. Parks and Recreational Resources 

Parks and Recreational Resources Located in 

Study Area 

Located in 

Relocation 

Corridor

Bellevue Park* Yes No

Blackie Buras Park Yes No

Gretna Park Yes No

Harvey Park Yes No

Huey P Long Park Yes No

Martin Luther King Junior Park Yes No

Medal of Honor Park Yes No

Mel Ott Park Yes No

McDonoghville/Knights Corner Park Yes No

Oakdale Park* Yes No

Plaquemines Off Road Park Yes Yes

Richard Street Park* Yes No

JB Spencer Park Yes No

Terrytown Playground* Yes No

Woodlawn West Park* Yes No

Parks marked with an asterisk (*) locations where LWCF funding has been used, according to the US 

Department of Interior National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Listings by County, 

3/13/2017, http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.

Source: Jefferson Parish GIS, Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Plan and USGS GNIS Database, 2016.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-10

Figure 4-4. Location of Parks and Recreational Resources
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-11

4.6.2 Open Space 

The Study Area contains one designated open space, 400 acres of land in Plaquemines Parish 

east of the NAS-JRB base in Belle Chasse. This property, purchased through cooperative 

endeavor of the Trust for Public Land and the US Navy, while in the Study Area, is outside of the 

Relocation Corridor. 

4.6.3 Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

Both of the wildlife conservation areas located in Plaquemines Parish are outside leveeprotected areas east of the Mississippi River and remain inaccessible except by boat. Both sites 

are outside of the Study Area and Relocation Corridor. 

4.6.4 Cultural Resources 

Archaeological Sites

As noted in Section 3.19, a Phase I survey of the Preferred Alternative45 was performed in an 

effort to satisfy 36 CFR § 800.5 (a)(1) (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 as Amended 2000) requirements to identify and mitigate the effects that the Project may 

have on potential cultural resources. Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, comprehensive 

background research revealed that portions of the Preferred Alternative had been surveyed 

during previous investigations. Based on the results of the archaeological survey, the Project 

would have no effect on buried historic resources. One site, crossed by the Preferred 

Alternative, has been determined by the SHPO as eligible for the NRHP given the association 

with the eligible property on which it sits (Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site). Archaeological 

sites are not protected under Section 4(f) unless they warrant preservation in place (23 CFR 

§774.13(b)(1)). 

Historic Resources 

As noted in Section 3.19.4, during the survey of cultural resources, one of the historic 

properties identified consists of two buildings older than 47 years that were part of the former 

River Oaks Academy (10911 LA 23) (Site 26-01501, shown in Figure 4-5). One building has a 

concrete masonry/sheet metal exterior and the other building has a solely sheet metal exterior. 

Both buildings are in poor condition. Part of the structure is within the ROW of the Preferred 

Alternative. In addition, the ROW passes through a grove of large live oak trees, which is part of 

Hero Park, a former private park site, on the property where the River Oaks Academy was 

constructed. The buildings and site are no longer open to use either as a school or as a private 

park. The buildings are currently occupied by Southern Arch, a local historic wood salvage and 

refinishing company. Some portions of the site are overgrown with vegetation. Refer to photos 

in Figures 4-6 through 4-8. Based on data collected during NRHP research, the Hero Park/River 

Oaks Academy site (i.e. the site within the 2016 revised boundary as shown in Figure 4-5) is 

 

45 See Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and NRHP Research for the LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation 

PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana. Draft Report, prepared by Earth Search, Inc. for HDR, Inc., 

for submittal to the Regional Planning Commission and Federal Railroad Administration, March 2017. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-12

eligible for nomination to the National Register. As such, the Project would result in an adverse 

effect to this historic resource, and a use of the resource under Section 4(f). 

Figure 4-5. Plan View of Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site 

Figure 4-6. Former River Oaks Academy Building (now Southern Arch) 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-13

Figure 4-7. Large Piles of Lumber on Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site 

Figure 4-8. Several Large Historic Live Oaks on Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-14

4.7 Section 6(f) Resources 

Section 6(f) resources are recreational lands purchased or improved with LWCF funds. As 

previously shown in Table 4-1, a full review of the available database at the National Park 

Service (NPS) website for projects in Louisiana indicates there are no recreation areas funded 

with LWCF in the Relocation Corridor. There are five park sites in the Study Area in Jefferson 

Parish with LWCF funding. None of these appear in the Relocation Corridor. Therefore, there 

would be no impact to Section 6(f) resources as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 

4.8 Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Assessment 

The estimated acreages shown for the potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources come from a 

review of aerial photography, combined with site plans and property layouts developed as part 

of sites in connection with the Preferred Alternative. These potential acreages, which remain 

subject to further refinement based upon the outcome of Project design, are considered in the 

text evaluations below. The definitions of permanent and temporary use applied in this 

discussion come from Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. 

4.8.1 Archaeological Resource Impacts 

The Preferred Alternative would have no effect on buried historic resources. One site identified 

during the archaeological survey (16PL249), crossed by the Preferred Alternative, exhibits no 

intact deposits within the ROW. In addition, intact deposits may exist beneath the River Oaks 

Academy site that would be discoverable during site prep or demolition activities at this 

location. These impacts would be created as part the permanent use of the area for the 

Preferred Alternative. It is possible that additional site preparation activities associated with the 

Project (i.e. grading, excavation, etc.) could lead to discovery of additional sites and create 

additional impacts to buried historic resources. Archaeological sites are not protected under 

Section 4(f) unless they warrant preservation in place (23 CFR §774.13(b)(1)). 

4.8.2 Historic Resource Impacts

As noted in Section 3.19.4 and Section 4.6.4, the Preferred Alternative extends through the 

Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site. The rear portion of one of the former River Oaks Academy 

buildings at 10911 LA 23 (26-01501) is in the direct APE in the southernmost portion of the 

Project ROW on LA 23. The remainder of this building and a second academy building are in the 

indirect APE. Extension of the ROW for the Build Alternative would require demolition of the 

former River Oaks Academy building (26-01501) shown in Figure 4-6 and five oak trees, which 

adversely affects the features of the property that make it eligible for protection under Section 

4(f). 

Given the proposed rail replaces an existing active rail corridor on the east side of the site, 

there is a minimal potential for additional noise impacts associated with the rail operation. 

However, this would not impact the business on-site, given that it is light industrial in nature 

(i.e. wood salvage, millwork, interior design and lumber storage) and is not of a type that would 

be sensitive to noise impacts. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-15

4.9 Avoidance Alternatives 

FRA may not approve a use of a Section 4(f) property unless there is no feasible and prudent 

alternative that avoids the use of the resource (23 U.S.C. §138(a)). Under Section 4(f), an 

alternative is deemed feasible if it can be constructed as a matter of sound engineering. 

Typically, alternatives studied in an environmental assessment are feasible; otherwise they 

would not have been carried forward for detailed study. An alternative is prudent if it meets 

the test of 23 CFR §774.17 which includes the following factors: 

 Assessing safety or operational problems; 

 How well the alternative meets the project purpose and need; 

 The severity of social, economic or environmental impacts; 

 The severity of impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal 

statutes. 

The Preferred Alternative has been identified as a result of technical review that included an 

evaluation of conceptual alternatives through a Tier I and Tier II analysis, using a documented 

series of evaluation factors that included review by the Project Management Committee (PMC) 

(See Section 5.1 Agency Coordination, and Section 5.1.4 Project Management Committee 

Meetings) and the public (See Section 5.2 Public Involvement). An initial set of four conceptual 

alignment options for the Project were analyzed for potential impacts to the physical, human 

and natural environment. The analysis, documented within the Tier I analysis, included 

opportunities for input from the PMC and public in order to refine the alternatives or identify 

potential impacts. The result of this analysis was the definition of two preliminary alternatives 

modified and examined in more detail within a Tier II analysis (See Section 2.4 Conceptual 

Alignment Options and Section 2.5 Preliminary Alternatives for more detail). Refinements 

occurred during the Tier II analysis based on commentary from the PMC and community. A 

summary of these adjustments, presented north to south, follow in Table 4-2 with their 

corresponding location shown in Figure 4-9.

Table 4-2. Summary of Rail Alignment Refinements Preferred Alterantive 

Refinement 

Location

Description of 

Rail Alignment Refinements

No. 1 Curve from double track mainline along 4th Street to Peters Road.

No. 2 Rail alignment along the west side of Peters Road – 4th Street to south of 

Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 3 Rail alignment along the east side of Peters Road – 4th Street to south of 

Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 4 Rail alignment along Peters Road south of Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 5 Rail alignment within undeveloped parcels south of Lapalco Boulevard.

No. 6 Rail alignment along the west side of Peters Road parallel to USACE floodwall 

including Peters Road reconstruction.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-16

Refinement 

Location

Description of 

Rail Alignment Refinements

No. 7 Rail alignment crossing the Murphy Canal.

No. 8 Rail alignment within undeveloped parcels between Murphy Canal crossing 

and GIWW.

No. 9 Rail alignment crossing the GIWW.

No. 10 Movable bridge type crossing the GIWW and proximity to NAS JRB.

No. 11 Rail alignment crossing LA 23 and connection to existing track at LA 23.

Figure 4-9. Refinement Locations Preferred Alternative 

 

It is within the Tier II analysis that refinements in the alternatives resulted in an evaluation of 

the potential rail crossing options at LA 23, southwest of the Belle Chasse community 

(Refinement Location 11 in Figure 4-9). Initially, Project concepts consisted of a dual crossing of 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-17

LA 23 in order to minimize both track length and property impacts (See Tier II Alternatives 

Analysis, Section 3.4.11). However, this created two at-grade crossings of LA 23, which did not 

have the support of PMC members from the local jurisdiction (Plaquemines Parish), LADOTD 

and the NOGC. The proposal, while functionally sufficient, did not allow for smoother 

transitions across LA 23 seen as critical by LADOTD and local officials to minimizing potential 

delays encountered by motorists on the corridor during train crossing periods. The decision to 

replace a dual track crossing (magenta lines on Figure 4-10) with a single track crossing 

alternative (double red lines on Figure 4-10) comes as a benefit to long range plans to elevate a 

short segment of LA 23 over the rail crossing in a manner that does not significantly disrupt 

adjacent property access. Such a crossing, which has not been funded, remains a local priority 

for implementation of the Project as funding becomes available. 

Figure 4-10. Rail Alignment Crossing LA 23 through the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy Site 

Incorporating a portion of the 4(f) site into the Project ROW is unavoidable due to the location 

of the Preferred Alternative and requirement to connect the relocated line to the existing 

railway that extends south. As shown in Figure 4-10, the River Oaks 4(f) site extends from the 

Mississippi River levee to LA 23 leaving no room to fit the southern portion of the wye east of 

LA 23 without impacting the 4(f) site. Given this action is unavoidable, minimization of impacts 

would be a logical course of action. The creation of the wye intersection using a single crossing 

of LA 23 offers an opportunity to provide minimal impacts to the Hero Park/River Oaks 

Academy site, as well as to provide an option that is both feasible and prudent from a rail 

engineering perspective (See Section 2.0, Tier II Alternatives Analysis and Section 3.4.11, Rail 

Alignment Crossing LA 23 and Connection to Existing Track at LA 23, Tier II Alternatives 

Analysis). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-18

Creating a single track crossing of LA 23 as part of the proposed wye intersection pushes the rail 

line from its current position along the LA 23 corridor closer to the Mississippi River levee. In 

doing so, approximately 6,700 feet (+/- 1.2 miles) of the current NOGC railway track along LA 23 

would need to be curved east and then west back to the existing rail corridor parallel to LA 23 

(see Figure 4-11) as part of the wye. At its closest point to the levee, the relocated track would 

maintain a 15 foot clearance of the Mississippi River levee to meet USACE requirements. 

The dual crossing option as shown with the magenta lines in Figure 4-10 would bisect the Hero 

Park/River Oaks Academy site, impact two structures from the former River Oaks Academy, 

impact additional live oak trees, and likely require acquisition of the entire site since portion of 

the site may be undevelopable in the future. The two crossing solution was discussed and 

deemed not feasible with technical analysis including the input from key agencies and other 

stakeholders (see Section 3.4.11, Tier II Analysis) including representatives of RPC, NOGC, 

LADOTD, Plaquemines Parish and USACE participating in the PMC process. 

Finally, the single track wye provides a more generous turning radius helping reduce travel time 

through the LA 23 crossing. In addition, it supports stated local objectives to elevate LA 23 in 

the future over the rail crossing as funds become available. 

In summary, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to crossing the 4(f) site, so there is no 

other course of action other than mitigation. 

4.10 Preliminary Section 4(f) Finding 

Based on the level of analysis completed, the Preferred Alternative would result in the use of 

one resource protected by Section 4(f): the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site. Completion of 

this additional investigation at the site, as reviewed and confirmed with the SHPO, indicate that 

the River Oaks Academy is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A due to the 

academy’s association with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the local impact of Federal 

mandated desegregation in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana and Criterion B due to the property’s 

association with Leander Perez, Sr. while Hero Park would be eligible for listing on the NRHP 

under Criterion A due to its contribution to the local history (36 CFR §60.4). 

4.11 Measures to Minimize Harm 

The Preferred Alternative would create an adverse effect on the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy 

site. As required through the general consultation process, appropriate mitigation measures 

were determined including documenting the historic property in accordance with Historic 

American Building Survey standards and installation of a historical marker (see Memorandum 

of Agreement in 

Appendix G). 

In the future, design and construction phases of the Project would include coordination with 

the SHPO and Louisiana Division of Archaeology in case of unanticipated discovery of intact 

cultural deposits. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-19

4.12 Preliminary Section 6(f) Finding 

There are no locations developed with Section 6(f) resources in the Relocation Corridor or 

Preferred Alternative. Therefore, there would be no impact to Section 6(f) resources as a result 

of the Preferred Alternative. 

4.13 Agency Coordination 

49 U.S.C. §303(b) requires consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the State of 

Louisiana (State Historic Preservation Officer with the State of Louisiana, Office of Cultural 

Development, Division of Historic Preservation) in the development of this Project. Table 4-3

provides coordination to date taken with this agency. 

Table 4-3. Summary of Agency Coordination 

Date Form Participants General Topics

May 4, 2015

Letter –

Solicitation of 

Views

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

 RPC

Opening of coordination and 

opportunity for agency commentary 

on the Project as presented with 

purpose and need and initial Study 

Area definition

May 7, 2015

Letter –

Solicitation of 

Views Response

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

 RPC

Notation that Section 106 review 

could not occur due to submittal of 

insufficient information. Request for 

additional information made as part 

of this letter

April 19, 

2017

Letter with 

Cultural 

Resources Report 

(Draft)

 FRA

 Plaquemines Parish

 Allen Hero (property 

owner)

 RPC

Transmittal of draft Cultural 

Resources Report to consulting 

parties

May 12, 2017

Letter with 

Cultural 

Resources Report 

(Draft)

 FRA

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

 RPC

Transmittal of draft Cultural 

Resources Report to the State 

Historic Preservation Officer

May 24, 2017 Letter

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

 RPC

 FRA

 Earth Search, Inc. 

(Cultural Historian)

Confirmation of draft Cultural 

Resources Report receipt, along with 

outline of comments on draft report

May 26, 2017 Email

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

Confirmation of potential mitigation 

strategy for impact to River Oaks 

Academy structure in ROW
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 4-20

Date Form Participants General Topics

 Earth Search, Inc. 

(Cultural Historian)

June 20, 

2017 (July 

12, 2017 

Approval)

Letter and SHPO 

Response

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

 FRA

SHPO accepted the Final Cultural 

Resources Report on July 12, 2017. 

By accepting the Final Report, they 

also accepted any decisions made in 

the report which would include 

eligibility determinations.

July 18, 2017 Conference Call

 State of Louisiana, State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer

 RPC

 FRA

 Earth Search, Inc. 

(Cultural Historian)

 Hero Lands Company

Section 106 Consulting Party 

consultation discussion about 

mitigation measures and the Draft 

Memorandum of Agreement 

between FRA and SHPO
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-1 

5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

Coordination and consultation with agencies, stakeholder groups and the public was initiated 

early in the EA process to incorporate agency and public comments and concerns into the 

development and analysis of the Project’s purpose and need, alternatives, and potential 

environmental impacts. Representatives from the RPC, RGPC, NOGC, LADOTD and the FRA 

coordinated closely on the EA. 

5.1 Agency Coordination 

5.1.1 Solicitation of Views 

Early in the planning stages of the EA, views from Federal, state, local agencies, organizations, 

and individuals were solicited. On May 4, 2015, a letter was sent to all applicable 

agencies/organizations/individuals requesting comments on the Project. The special expertise 

of these groups assisted with input on the purpose and need statement, as well as the early 

identification of possible adverse economic, social, or environmental effects or concerns 

related to the Project. A summary of the solicitation of views process including the letter, 

mailing list, and responses is included in the Agency Scoping Meeting Memorandum.46

 

5.1.2 Agency Scoping Meeting 

The agency scoping meeting was held on June 5, 2015 with resource agencies. Key topics 

discussed were the NEPA process, Study Area environmental resources, conceptual alignment 

options, and permitting and agency requirements. See Table 5-1 for a summary of the agency 

scoping meeting topics/agendas and outcomes. 

5.1.3 Agency Coordination Meetings 

Several meetings were conducted to provide applicable Federal and state agencies with an 

overview of the Project and address topics specific to their special expertise. The first of three 

agency coordination meetings was held on July 23, 2015 with the US Coast Guard. Key topics 

discussed were GIWW Bridge crossing types and design permitting. The second Agency 

Coordination meeting was held August 18, 2015 with the Port of New Orleans and City of 

Gretna. Key topics discussed were the NEPA process, Study Area environmental resources, 

alternatives considered, and rail access to Port of New Orleans property. The final agency 

coordination meeting was held January 18, 2016 with the US Army Corp of Engineers. Key 

topics discussed were the NEPA process, Study Area features, alternatives, and ROW and 

easements along Peters Road. See Table 5-1 for a summary of agency coordination meeting 

topics/agendas and outcomes. 

 

46 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-2 

Table 5-1. Summary of Agency Meetings 

Meeting Type Date Attendees Topic/Agenda Outcomes

Agency 

Scoping

June 5, 

2015

Resource 

Agencies

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Conceptual alignment 

options 

 Permitting and agency 

coordination 

 Permitting requirements

 Design requirements

 Identification of 

environmental resources to 

be considered in the NEPA 

document 

For meeting record see Agency Scoping

Meeting Summary Memorandum; 

September 2015

Agency 

Coordination

July 23, 

2015

US Coast 

Guard

 Project overview

 GIWW bridge crossing 

types

 Design and permitting 

 USCG design and permitting 

requirements

 USCG preference for 

Alternative A alignment 

For meeting record see Public and Agency crossing the GIWW

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Agency 

Coordination

August 18, 

2015

Port of New 

Orleans and

City of 

Gretna 

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Alternatives 

considered

 Rail access to Port of 

New Orleans property

 Port of New Orleans – rail 

access to Perry Street Wharf

 Disposition of track through 

Gretna

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Agency 

Coordination 

January 

28, 2016

US Army 

Corps of 

Engineers

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area features

 Alternatives 

 Rail alignment along 

the west side of Peters 

Road adjacent to 

floodwall

 Permitting requirements 

within proximity to USACE 

infrastructure including 

floodwalls and levees

 Rail design requirements

and clearances adjacent to 

the floodwall and Mississippi 

River levees

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum, 

May 2016

Agency 

Coordination

July 18, 2017 SHPO, RPC,

FRA, Earth 

Search, Inc., 

and 

Hero Lands 

Company

 Section 106 Consulting 

Party consultation 

discussion

 Mitigation measures for 

impacts to the Hero 

Park/River Oaks Academy 

site

 Draft Memorandum of 

Agreement between FRA 

and SHPO 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-3 

5.1.4 Project Management Committee Meetings 

A series of seven Project Management Committee (PMC) meetings were held to formulate and 

refine the build alternatives throughout the Alternatives Analysis. The seven meetings consisted 

of three general meetings (Table 5-2) followed by three technical committee meetings and one 

design coordination meeting (Table 5-3). A summary of the PMC meetings, including 

presentations and tiered Alternatives Analysis plans is included in the Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum.47 

The initial general PMC meeting (PMC Meeting No. 1) was held on March 17, 2015 to provide 

an overview of the EA and the PMC’s role. PMC Meeting No. 2 was held on July 22, 2015 to 

review and gather feedback on information in the following four draft documents: Purpose and 

Need, Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) Marine 

Vessel Traffic Analysis, and Tier I Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation. PMC Meeting 

No. 3 was held on October 8, 2015 and included a review of public meeting comments and 

discussion on preliminary alternatives. 

The fourth PMC meeting (PMC Technical Meeting No. 1) was held on November 3, 2015 to 

discuss tradeoffs between preliminary alternatives in more depth. PMC Technical Meeting 

No. 2 was held on January 5, 2016 to present refinements to the preliminary alternatives and to 

initially obtain consensus on the Preferred Alternative. The final technical meeting (PMC 

Technical Meeting No. 3) was held on March 17, 2016 to finalize consensus on the Preferred 

Alternative. A design coordination meeting was held with NOGC Railway on October 22, 2015 to 

obtain consensus on the overall Preferred Alternative alignment. Final approval of the 

recommended Preferred Alternative was reached via email on March 30, 2016.

 

47 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-4 

Table 5-2. Summary of Project Management Committee Meetings 

Meeting Type Date PMC 

Members Topic/Agenda Outcomes

PMC Meeting 

No. 1

March 

17, 

2015

Full PMC  Project overview

 Existing NOGC Railway 

operations

 NEPA process

 Study Area features

 At-grade highway rail 

crossings 

 Alternatives Analysis

 Traffic evaluation 

methodology 

concurrence 

 Understanding of FRA NEPA 

requirements

 Understanding of purpose 

and need, and Study Area 

resources

 Concurrence on study 

methodology

 PMC role and PMC member 

responsibilities

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

PMC Meeting 

No. 2

July 22, 

2015

Full PMC  PMC approval of the 

following documents:

 Purpose and Need 

 Existing traffic 

report

 Marine vessel 

study

 Tier I AA report

 Existing NOGC Railway 

operations 

 Tier I AA – Overview 

and screening of 4 

conceptual alignment 

options

 PMC to provide comments 

on project deliverables 

 Understanding of project 

screening methodology

 Concurrence on study 

methodology

 PMC recommendation to 

eliminate 2 of 4 conceptual 

alignment options

 PMC recommendation to 

further evaluate preliminary 

alternatives 

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Note: AA = Alternatives Analysis

PMC Meeting 

No. 3

(Follow-up to 

September 22, 

2015 Public 

Meeting)

October 

8, 2015

Full PMC  Public Meeting recap 

 Existing NOGC Railway 

operations within 

Gretna 

 Commodities 

transported

 GIWW Crossing

 NOGC Railway 

operations – 

customers/businesses 

served 

 Disposition of NOGC rail 

service through Gretna and 

tracks along 4th Street 

 NAS JRB airspace restrictions 

– path location and height

 Project Team to further 

evaluate rail crossing 

location south of Lapalco 

Blvd. and alignment on the 

east side of Peters Road 

adjacent to the floodwall 

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

PMC Design 

Coordination 

Meeting 

October 

22, 2015

PMC

Member 

NOGC/RGPC

 Alignment preferences 

throughout the 

corridor and other rail 

operational 

requirements

 Consensus on alignment 

preferences to comprise the 

preferred alternative

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-5 

Table 5-3. Summary of Project Management Committee Technical Meetings 

Meeting Type Date PMC 

Members Topic/Agenda Outcomes

PMC Technical 

Meeting No. 1

Follow-up to 

October 8, 2015 

PMC Meeting

Nov 3, 

2015

PMC 

Technical 

Committee

 4th Street curves 

 Peters Road alignmentwest side versus east 

side

 Overview of ROW, 

servitudes and 

easements

 Potential impacts

 Mitigation and Context 

Sensitive Solutions 

(CSS) 

 Begin additional evaluation of

rail alignment on the east side 

of Peters Road adjacent to 

the floodwall

 Potential Mitigation and CSS: 

Identification of 

neighborhood improvements 

- noise wall and community 

park 

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

PMC Technical 

Meeting No. 2

Follow-up to 

November 3, 

2015 PMC 

Meeting

January 

5, 2016

PMC 

Technical 

Committee

 4th Street curves 

 Alignment south of 

Lapalco Blvd.

 Peters Road alignmentwest side versus east 

side

 LA 23 crossing in Belle 

Chasse

 Potential impacts

 Mitigation and CSS

 4th Street curve - final 

approval by PMC to provide a 

10 degree 30 minute (10.5o) 

curve for rail operations

 LA 23 crossing in Belle Chasse 

- final approval by PMC to 

provide an at-grade highway 

rail crossing initially; followed 

by grade-separation if funding 

is available

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

PMC Technical 

Meeting No. 3

Follow-up to 

January 5, 2016 

PMC Meeting 

March 

17, 2016

PMC 

Technical 

Committee

 Alignment south of 

Lapalco Blvd.

 Peters Road alignmentwest side versus east 

side

 Layout of ROW 

associated with Peters 

Road reconstruction

 LA 23 crossing in Belle 

Chasse

 Potential impacts

 Peters Road alignmentadjacent to floodwall - final 

approval by PMC

 Peters Road Reconstruction 

includes ROW purchase for 

relocated Peters Road and 

reconstruction of Peters Road

 PMC requests modification to 

the rail alignment crossing 

Murphy Canal

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Follow-up to 

March 17, 2016 

PMC Meeting 

March 

30, 2016

PMC 

Technical 

Committee

 Modification to the 

alignment crossing 

Murphy Canal

 Email sent to PMC technical 

committee - modification to 

the alignment crossing 

Murphy Canal - final approval 

by PMC
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-6 

5.2 Public Involvement 

5.2.1 Public Meeting 

A public meeting was held on September 22, 2015, from 4 to 7 pm at the Mel Ott Park MultiPurpose Center, 2301 Belle Chasse Highway in Gretna, Louisiana to share the EA scope and 

solicit stakeholder and public input on the Project’s purpose and need, range of alternatives 

under study, and key information to be considered by the Project Team in the Alternatives 

Analysis process. The public meeting venue was a well-known, centralized location within the 

Study Area that met the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements and was 

centrally located for easy transit access. The format of the public meeting was an open house 

with stations set up throughout the meeting venue to present project information. A summary 

of the public meeting is included in the Public Meeting Summary report48. 

5.2.2 Informational Meetings 

A series of small, informational meetings were conducted with the following stakeholders to 

discuss specific topics such as rail operations, Study Area environmental resources, conceptual 

alignments and alternatives considered: 

 Harvey Canal Industrial Association on July 23, 2015 

 Public, elected officials, and agencies on September 22, 2015 

 Harvey Canal Industrial Association on October 1, 2015 

 City of Gretna Council on October 14, 2015 

 Jefferson Parish Elected Officials on April 14, 2016 

See Table 5-4, Summary of Stakeholder and Public Meetings, for details on meeting 

topics/agendas and outcomes. A summary of these informational meetings is included in the 

Public and Agency Outreach Summary Memorandum.

 

48 Report available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or from RPC upon request. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 5-7 

Table 5-4. Summary of Stakeholder and Public Meetings 

Meeting 

Type Date Attendees Topic/Agenda Outcomes

Informational 

Meeting; 

Introductory 

Meeting to 

HCIA 

Leadership

July 23, 

2015

Harvey Canal 

Industrial 

Association 

(HCIA) 

Management 

Team

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Rail operations

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Conceptual alignment 

options 

 Concurrence to evaluate 

conceptual alignment 

options further 

 South of Lapalco Blvd., 

consider an alignment on 

the west side of Peters Road 

parallel to the floodwall

 Concerns regarding business 

access along Peters Road

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Public 

Meeting

September 

22, 2015

Public, 

Elected 

Officials, and

Agencies 

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Presentation on 

alternatives considered

including conceptual 

alignment options and 

preliminary 

alternatives

Public Comments included: 

 Commodities transported 

 Traffic impacts within 

Gretna

 Neighborhood impacts –

noise, vibration, 

environmental justice 

 Eliminate Preliminary 

Alternative B

 South of Lapalco Blvd., 

consider an alignment on 

the west side of Peters Road 

parallel to the floodwall

For meeting record see Public Meeting 

Summary Report; October 2015

Informational

Meeting

October 1, 

2015

HCIA 

Members

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Alternatives considered

 The public comment period 

was extended to October 13, 

2015 to allow for the receipt 

of comments from HCIA

For meeting record see Public and Agency members

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Informational 

Meeting

October 

14, 2015

City of 

Gretna 

Council 

Meeting

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Alternatives considered

 No public comments 

received at the Council 

meeting

For meeting record see Public and Agency 

Outreach Summary Memorandum; 

May 2016

Informational 

Meeting

October 

14, 2015

City of 

Gretna 

Council 

Meeting

 Project overview

 NEPA process

 Study Area 

environmental 

resources

 Alternatives considered

 No public comments 

received at the Council 

meeting
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-1 

6.0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES

Currently, there is no identified funding for the Preferred Alternative. This section provides a 

brief summary of past and current legislation as well as the identification of available potential 

options for funding and financing future phases for the implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative. There are several finance mechanisms for investing in freight rail improvement 

projects. The most common are appropriations from Congress or state agencies, where the 

project is specifically funded through a legislative or departmental program and authorized by 

the legislature. There are also other methods of funding capital projects at both the state and 

Federal level. These other funding sources can be categorized as grants, loans, and taxexpenditure finance programs. The primary source of the information contained herein is 

extracted from FRA’s website under their “Legislation and Regulations” page and the “Grants 

and Loans” page (www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0020 & /P0021 accessed on July 8, 2016).

6.1 Federal Legislation 

Federal funding for freight rail projects in the past have largely been limited to highway grade 

crossing safety enhancements and projects that benefit air quality. Recently, however, the US 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed financing programs for transportation 

infrastructure improvements resulting from the prior and current Federal legislation including: 

the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA); the Railroad Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA); the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); 

and most recently, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act. 

6.1.1 FAST Act Overview 

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act, or FAST Act (P.L. 114-94), the first long-term Federal transportation bill in 

more than 10 years. The FAST Act authorizes $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 

for the USDOT’s rail, highway, motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety, 

hazardous materials safety, research, technology and statistics programs. The FAST Act also 

marks the first time intercity passenger rail programs have been included in a comprehensive, 

multimodal surface transportation authorization bill, authorizing more than $10 billion for 

intercity passenger and freight rail grants (www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0919 accessed on July 8, 

2016). Excerpted from FRA’s website, applicable provisions of the Fast Act by primary topic area 

include the following:

 Safety;

 Rail Development Grants and Policy;

 Financing Programs; and 

 Project Delivery.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-2 

6.1.2 FAST Act Safety Provision 

Three new competitive grant programs are included within the safety provision of the FAST Act. 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Requirements

The FAST Act includes several provisions to improve the safety of highway-rail grade crossings. 

For example, the FAST Act:

 Requires DOT to develop and distribute a model state highway-rail grade crossing safety 

action plan for States;

 Requires states to submit (and update) state action plans;

 Requires a study on data availability and engineering practices for private highway-rail 

grade crossings;

 Requires a study on the effectiveness of PTC at highway-rail grade crossings; and

 Requires the Comptroller General to evaluate on the use of locomotive horns at 

highway-rail grade crossings.

Safe Transportation of Energy Products (STEP)

The FAST Act focuses on the safe transportation of energy products. For example, the statute:

 Requires new tank cars to be equipped with “insulating blankets;”

 Mandates all legacy DOT-111 tank cars in flammable liquids service to be upgraded to 

new retrofit standards regardless of the product shipped;

 Sets minimum requirements for the protection of certain top-fitting tank car valves;

 Requires reporting on the industry-wide progress and capacity to modify DOT-111 tank 

cars;

 Requires a derailment test and an independent evaluation to investigate braking 

technology requirements for the movement of trains carrying certain hazardous 

materials; and

 Requires Class I railroads to generate accurate, real-time, and electronic train consist 

information (e.g., the location of hazardous materials on a train). Railroads must provide 

that information to first responders on the scene of an accident and provide information 

about certain flammable liquid shipments to State Emergency Response Commissions.

Other Key Rail Safety Provisions

The FAST Act has several additional provisions to improve rail safety. For example, the FAST 

Act:

 Requires DOT to provide a state or political subdivision of a state with a public version of 

a railroad’s bridge inspection report, upon request;

 Requires redundant signal protection for maintenance-of-way workers;

 Requires DOT to amend railroad police training provisions; and
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-3 

 Requires DOT to report to Congress on research conducted to develop a system to 

measure vertical track deflection from a moving rail car.

6.1.3 FAST Act Rail Development Grants and Policy Provision

The FAST Act authorizes $2.2 billion over five years for three new competitive rail development 

grant programs that build off of the Administration’s previous $10 billion investment through 

the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program:

 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (Sec. 11301): Purpose is to 

improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of passenger and freight rail systems. 

Eligible activities include a wide range of capital, regional and corridor planning, 

environmental analyses, research, workforce development, and training projects.

 Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair (Sec. 11302): Purpose is to reduce 

the state of good repair backlog on publically-owned or Amtrak-owned infrastructure, 

equipment, and facilities. Eligible activities include capital projects to (1) replace existing 

assets in-kind or with assets that increase capacity or service levels, (2) ensure that 

service can be maintained while existing assets are brought into a state of good repair, 

(3) bring existing assets into a state of good repair.

 Restoration and Enhancement Grants (Sec. 11303): Purpose is to provide operating 

assistance to initiate, restore, or enhance intercity passenger rail transportation. Grants 

are limited to three years of operating assistance per route and may not be renewed.

6.1.4 FAST Act Financing Program Provision 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program provides direct Federal 

loans and loan guarantees to finance the development of railroad infrastructure. The FAST Act 

contains several provisions intended to streamline the loan approval process, increase access to 

the program, and fund a wider array of projects by:

 Requiring the Secretary to implement procedures and measures to economize the time 

and cost involved in obtaining an approval or a disapproval of an application for a direct 

loan or loan guarantee;

 Expanding applicant eligibility to allow for joint ventures that include at least one 

otherwise eligible applicant;

 Authorizing financing for transit-oriented development (this authority expires 4 years 

from enactment);

 Clarifying that pre-construction activities, such as planning and design, may be financed;

 Authorizing DOT to enter into Master Credit Agreements (an agreement to make one or 

more loans at future dates for a program of related projects on terms acceptable to the 

Secretary).
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-4 

6.2 Grants for Freight Rail Investment 

Grant programs are a viable funding sources for rail investments to improve safety, relieve 

congestion, and expand and upgrade passenger and freight rail infrastructure and services. This 

includes competitive discretionary grants and dedicated grants. Grants give States and the 

Federal government the best control over the use of funds. Funds can be targeted to specific 

projects that solve freight and passenger rail needs. At the Federal level, the longstanding 

FHWA Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Program provides dedicated funding to 

improve safety at rail grade crossings. There are also Federal grant programs such as the 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant program 

that target freight rail projects. Summarized below are the current competitive discretionary 

grant programs that may be applicable to project funding; as excerpted from FRA’s website

(www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0021 accessed on July 8, 2016). 

6.2.1 Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants 

Funding under this competitive discretionary grant program is available to projects that make 

safety improvements to railroad infrastructure including the acquisition, improvement or 

rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment, such as rolling stock, locomotives, and passenger 

cars; or rail facilities, including track, bridges, tunnel, yards, buildings, passenger stations, and 

maintenance and repair shops. Projects that make improvements to highway-rail at-grade 

crossings, including grade separations and grade crossing closures, are also eligible, as are 

improvements necessary to establish a quite zone. The focus of a project must be safety 

improvements, and not other potential benefits, such as increased operational efficiencies or 

economic opportunities. States, local governments, and passenger and freight railroad carriers 

are all eligible applicants for all project types permitted under this grant program.

6.2.2 Railroad Safety Technology for Positive Train Control (PTC) 

Funding under this competitive discretionary grant program is limited to eligible projects that 

implement a positive train control system or will otherwise benefit from overall PTC system 

implementation of freight, intercity passenger and commuter railroads. Eligible applicants for 

PTC implementation projects include passenger and freight railroad carriers, railroad suppliers, 

and states and local governments that have a public benefit of improved safety and network 

efficiency. To be eligible for assistance, the above entities must have submitted a Positive Train 

Control Implementation Plan as required by 49 UCS 20157(a). 

6.2.3 Railroad Safety Grants for the Safe Transportation of Energy Products by Rail Program 

Funding under this competitive discretionary grant program is available to states for public and 

private railroad grade crossings enhancement and track improvement projects that improve 

safety on rail routes that transport flammable energy products. According to the Notice of 

Funding Availability for this grant program, discretionary funding is available for public and 

private railroad grade crossing enhancement and track improvement projects that improve 

safety on rail routes that transport flammable energy products, which are defined as crude oil, 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-5 

ethanol, and natural gas. Eligible applicants include states, groups of states, and interstate 

compacts.

6.3 Loan Programs for Freight Rail Investment 

Loan programs are also a viable funding sources for rail investments. Loan programs such as the 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing, and Transportation Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act are existing loan programs specific to railroad and other transportation 

infrastructure projects. The funding programs are described below. 

6.3.1 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program was originally 

established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and amended by the 

Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU). The RRIF provides direct loans and credit assistance to public and private sponsors of 

intermodal and rail projects, including Class I and short-line railroads. 

 

This program enables USDOT to make direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local 

governments, government sponsored authorities and corporations, and railroads and joint 

ventures that include at least one railroad. Funding may be used for: 

 Acquisition, improvement or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or facilities 

including tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings and shops; 

 Refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes listed above; or 

 Development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

The FRA can authorize direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35 billion and up to $7 billion for 

projects benefiting non-Class I carrier freight railroads. The loans can fund up to one hundred 

percent of a railroad project with a repayment period of up to 35 years and interest rates equal 

to the cost of borrowing from the government. Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and 

local governments, government-sponsored authorities and corporations, joint ventures with at 

least one railroad, and limited option freight shippers who intend to construct a new rail 

connection. 

6.3.2 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA authorizes credit assistance on 

flexible terms directly to public-private sponsors of major surface transportation projects of 

national significance to assist in gaining access to private capital markets. It can provide direct 

loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit to support up to one third of a project's cost. TIFIA is 

restricted to projects costing at least $50 million, with the exception of projects for Intelligent 

Transportation System (ITS) projects, which must cost at least $15 million. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-6 

TIFIA provides loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for large capital improvement 

projects. To qualify for assistance under TIFIA, a project needs a source of revenue to cover 

debt service costs; the total project must be valued at more than $100 million or 50 percent of 

the State’s annual Federal-aid highway apportionments, whichever is less; the Federal TIFIA 

loan cannot exceed one-third of the total project cost; and the project’s senior debt obligations 

must receive an investment-grade rating from at least one of the major credit rating agencies. 

These factors limit its applicability, and private rail projects are not eligible today (although 

eligibility is proposed for reauthorization); but TIFIA is an important tool that can be used for 

financing joint highway and rail projects that meet the program guidelines. 

6.4 State Programs 

In addition to Federal funding, many States provide funding for freight rail projects. In most 

cases, State programs were initiated by the Federal rail service assistance program established 

by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act), and amended by the 

Local Rail Service Assistance Act of 1978 (LRSA). The LRSA program provided funding on a 

Federal/local matching share basis for four types of projects: rehabilitation, new construction, 

substitute service, and acquisition. The LRSA program permitted States to provide funds on a 

grant or loan basis. LRSA was updated in 1990 to the Local Rail Freight Assistance program 

(LRFA) and the criteria for lines eligible to receive assistance were revised. Funds for the 

program were dramatically reduced in the 1990s, and congressional appropriations ceased in 

1995. Despite the lack of Federal funds, many States have continued their freight rail assistance 

programs through remaining LRFA funds (repaid loans) or through apportionment of State 

funds. The objectives of most of these programs have been job retention, economic 

development, and safety. More recently, benefits accrued to highway congestion mitigation 

and avoided highway costs are being considered. 

6.4.1 Louisiana Capital Outlay Program

The information contained in this section is extracted from LADOTD’s website under their 

“Water Resources” pages (wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/

Public_Works/Water_Resources/Pages/CapitalOutlayProgram.aspx accessed on July 8, 2016).

The State of Louisiana Capital Outlay Program (Bond Program) provides a source of funding for 

public improvement type projects not eligible for funding through any of the dedicated funding 

programs. The funds are provided through the sale of State General Obligation Bonds and can 

be used for acquiring lands, buildings, equipment or other properties, or for their preservation 

or development of permanent improvements. Items which qualify as capital outlay 

expenditures include acquisition of land; site development and improvement; construction of 

buildings and other structures; additions, major improvement, and alterations to an existing 

facility that will extend its life or increase its usefulness; installation, extension, or replacement 

of utility systems, fire protection, and other major facilities; initial equipment and furnishings 

for new buildings; and major equipment and furnishings for existing buildings. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-7 

The program requires that projects be submitted by the head of each budget unit (i.e., 

Department Secretary). However, local officials of political subdivisions may also make 

requests, but only through the senator and representative in whose district the proposed 

project will be located. Each legislator forwards such requests to the Facility Planning and 

Control Section of the Division of Administration. 

Projects then compete through the legislative process, and successful ones are grouped into 

various funding priorities and included in the approved Capital Outlay Bill. Funding for a specific 

project does not become available until such time as the bonds for that project are sold, or an 

advance cash line-of-credit is approved by the State Bond Commission. 

6.5 Other Funding and Financing Options 

6.5.1 Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) 

An Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) is created to provide financial assistance to improve 

industrial access to rail. These programs aim to preserve freight rail service, stimulate economic 

development through new or expanded freight rail service, and increase the use of rail 

transportation. An IRAP program would provide funding assistance for the construction or 

improvement of railroad tracks and facilities to serve industrial or commercial sites where 

freight rail service is currently needed, anticipated in the future, or in need of an upgrade. The 

funding program can allow financial assistance to localities, businesses and/or industries 

seeking to provide freight rail service between the site of an existing or proposed commercial 

facility and common carrier railroad tracks. It typically entails a partnership among the public 

sector, business owner, and railroad, which can all realized benefits from new or improved rail 

access. 

IRAP programs are well-established in a number of states, including New York, North Carolina, 

and Virginia. Each State’s IRAP program varies in terms of budget and the percent of local and 

private funds that are required. Louisiana does not have an IRAP program. 

6.5.2 Public-Private Partnerships 

Several states have instituted policies and programs that encourage public-private partnerships 

(PPP) to help leverage private investment into transportation infrastructure. There are two 

distinct forms of PPP arrangements: one where private entities lease public infrastructure and 

one where investment in infrastructure is shared by public and private entities, regardless of 

ownership. 

There are a number of State and Federal programs that have been created to make public funds 

available to private railroads. Although public funds will benefit the private sector, public 

investment comes with restrictions and eligibility requirements. Projects generally have to 

provide measurable economic benefits, require matching funds, and in the case of rail may 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 6-8 

require accommodation of additional passenger service. The following are examples of existing 

PPP arrangements: 

 Alameda Corridor – This is a $2 billion 20-mile rail expressway connecting the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach to rail yards near Los Angeles. The project will provide 

faster, more efficient freight flows. 

 Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) – This 

program is a partnership between the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, and the freight 

and passenger railroads. The program included upgrade of track connections and 

expanded routes, meaning faster connections and operations. This program also 

received TIGER funds. 

 Heartland Corridor – This project was a partnership between the Federal Highway 

Administration and a private railroad that would raise bridge and tunnel heights to allow 

double stacking between the East Coast and Chicago. 

 CSX Boston/Worcester Line – The MBTA acquired the property rights of the Boston to 

Worcester rail line from CSX Corporation, increasing the potential for additional 

commuter service. As part of this transaction, the Commonwealth and CSX will increase 

the vertical clearances of bridges along the railroad main line between I-495 and the 

New York State line to accommodate double-stack freight trains. The Commonwealth 

will assume responsibility for raising highway bridges, while CSX will be responsible for 

lowering tracks. 

6.5.3 Tax-Expenditure Finance Programs

Tax-expenditure finance programs include accelerated depreciation, tax-exempt bond 

financing, and tax-credit bond financing. Expansion of tax-exempt private activity bonds for 

surface transportation could potentially be beneficial for rail investment. Tax-credit bond 

financing is a new form of federally subsidized debt financing, where the investor receives a 

Federal tax credit in lieu of interest payments on the bonds. From the borrower’s perspective, it 

provides a zero-interest-cost loan. These programs can be used to provide targeted, income-tax 

benefits for investments made to improve the efficiency or increase the capacity of the freight 

rail system. They have the potential to elevate the rail system’s rate of return and 

simultaneously reduce its cost of capital. States and local agencies will likely want to explore all 

of these tools including new or expanded ones that may be included in the surface 

transportation reauthorization legislation, tailoring them to projects that produce public and 

system-wide benefits. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 7-1 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/CONTRIBUTORS 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (PMC) MEMBERS 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Catherine Dobbs, Regional Manager 

John Winkle, Project Manager 

Dick Cogswell, Engineering Manager 

Melissa Hatcher, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Tammany 

and Tangipahoa Parishes 

Walter Brooks, Executive Director 

Jeff Roesel, Deputy Director 

Karen Parsons, Principal Planner/RPC Project Manager 

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation 

Robert Bach, President and CEO 

Sam Kaiser, Public Affairs 

New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company 

Robert Howery, President 

Other PMC Members 

Mike Yenni, Jefferson Parish President

Mark Drewes, Jefferson Parish 

Kazem Alikhani, Jefferson Parish 

Ryan Breaux, Jefferson Parish 

Amos Cormier, Jr., Plaquemines Parish President (in Memorium) 

Ken Dugas, Plaquemines Parish 

Sandy Sanders, Plaquemines Port 

John Pennison, Plaquemines Port 

Belinda Constant, City of Gretna Mayor 

Matthew Martinec, City of Gretna 

Azalea Rousselle, City of Gretna 

John Shaddinger, Jr. City of Westwego Mayor 

Bruce Keller, NAS JRB New Orleans 

Phil Jones, LADOTD 

Dean Goodell, LADOTD 

Laura Phillips, LADOTD 

Sharon Balfour, LADOTD 

Chris Morvant, LADOTD District 02 

Scott Boyle, LADOTD District 02 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 7-2 

CONSULTANTS 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

Kevin Keller, Vice President and Project Manager 

Doree Magiera, Environmental Program Lead 

Lucas Bathurst, Senior Rail Engineer 

Lisa Wadsworth, P.E., Environmental Engineer 

Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. 

Paul Waidhas, AICP, Vice President of Planning 

Ed E. Elam, III, AICP PTP, Associate – Planner 

Carl Seifert, AICP, Planner 

Rene Chopin, P.E., Senior Engineer 

GCR, Inc. 

Mona Nosari, Associate Vice President 

Lucas Lilly, Sr. Planner/Real Estate Specialist 

Earth Search, Inc. 

Jill Yakubic, President 

Rhonda Smith, Vice President 

Leaaf Environmental, LLC 

Claire Renault, Geologist 

Madeline Dickson, Environmental Scientist 

The Hawthorne Agency, Inc. 

Geneva W. Coleman, President 

Karimah Stewart, Project Manager 

Stephen Pierre, Graphic Lead 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 8-1 

8.0 NOTIFICATION LIST 

The same Federal, state, and local agencies and entities who were sent the Solicitation of Views 

package in May 2015 will be notified of a 30-day comment period for the EA once it is posted

on the RPC website. Letters will be sent to the following agencies, organizations, and elected 

officials and the Project Management Committee will be asked to notify their constituents: 

FEDERAL 

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Region VI 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration, Region 6 

US Department of the Interior 

US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Regulatory Branch 

US Coast Guard, Marine Safety and 8th Coast Guard District 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services 

US Geological Survey 

National Marine Fish Service, Habitat Conservation Division 

National Park Service, Southeast Region 

National Resources Conservation Service 

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base 

STATE 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Offices of Forestry and Soil/Water 

Conservation

Louisiana Department of Culture Recreation and Tourism, Division of Archaeology and Office of 

State Parks

Louisiana Department of Economic Development, Office of Business Development

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Division of Environmental Health

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Offices of Mineral Resources and Conservation

Louisiana Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Commission

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Headquarters and District 02 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program

Louisiana Division of Administration, Office of State Lands and Facility Planning and Control 

Louisiana State University, Sea Grant Legal Advisory Service 

LOCAL 

City of Gretna 

City of Westwego 

Jefferson Parish Government (various departments) 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 8-1 

Plaquemines Parish Government (various departments) 

Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District 

ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Louisiana House of Representatives, Districts 103 and 105 

Louisiana State Senate, Districts 1, 7, and 8 

United States House of Representatives, Districts 1 through 8 

United States Senate 

RAILROADS 

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation 

New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Westbank Business & Industry Association (formerly HCIA) 

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

Louisiana Good Roads Association 

Louisiana Forestry Association 

Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper 

Mississippi River Trail, Inc. 

Sierra Club, New Orleans and Lafayette 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 9-2 

9.0 REFERENCES 

9.1 Reports Incorporated by Reference 

The following are stand-alone documents that were prepared as part of this EA and are 

considered part of this EA. These documents are available at www.norpc.org/railroad.html or 

from RPC upon request (except for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey report). 

Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation 

PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task LA23RR1, 

RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. May 2015. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 

and The Hawthorne Agency, Inc.

Agency Scoping Meeting Memorandum, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation 

PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task LA23RR1, 

RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. September 2015. Prepared by HDR Engineering, 

Inc. 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) Marine Vessel Traffic Analysis, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast 

Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC 

Task LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. August 2015. Prepared by HDR 

Engineering, Inc. and Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. 

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and NRHP Research, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway 

Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC/FRA 

Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00, RPC Contract No. LA23RR1. Final Report. June 2017. 

Prepared by Earth Search, Inc. 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation 

PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task LA23RR1, 

RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. May 2016. Prepared by Leaff Environmental, 

LLC.

Public and Agency Outreach Summary Memorandum, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway 

Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task 

LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. May 2016. Prepared by HDR 

Engineering, Inc. 

Public Meeting Summary, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project, 

Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FRRLD-0032-14-01-00. November 2015. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. and The 

Hawthorne Agency, Inc. 

Purpose and Need, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson 

and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-

14-01-00. August 2015. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 

Tier I Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway 

Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 9-3 

LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. August 2015. Prepared by HDR 

Engineering, Inc. 

Tier II Alternatives Analysis – Screening Evaluation, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway 

Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task 

LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. June 2016. Prepared by HDR 

Engineering, Inc. 

Traffic Analysis Report – Existing Conditions, LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Relocation 

PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task LA23RR1, 

RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. July 2015. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 

and Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. 

Traffic Analysis Report – No-Build Conditions (2040), LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway 

Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task 

LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. December 2015. Prepared by HDR 

Engineering, Inc. and Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. 

Traffic Analysis Report – Build Conditions (2040), LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway 

Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, RPC Task 

LA23RR1, RPC/FRA Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00. December 2015. Prepared by HDR 

Engineering, Inc. and Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. 

9.2 Other References Cited 

Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE). 2013. CREATE 

Noise and Vibration Assessment Methodology, June 2013. 

DMJM Harris. 2002. Plaquemines Parish Intermodal Feasibility Study, Task A-8.02, State Project 

#736-38-0001. Prepared for the Regional Planning Commission. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2012. High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2012. DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 

2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 

Hale, Asley, Carrie Humphrey, Dena Struchtemeyer, Allison Flanagan, Nathanael Heller, 

Katherine Fogg, Susan Smith, Wayne Boyko and William Athens. 2012. Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey Performed for the Resilient Features Component of the HSDRRS/MRL 

Co-Located Project, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. RCG&A report submitted to the New 

Orleans District, US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans 22-4117.

HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2011a. Conceptual Engineering Report, Proposed Railroad 

Relocation & Extension, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway, Jefferson & Plaquemines 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 9-4 

Parishes, Louisiana. Prepared for the Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and New Orleans & 

Gulf Coast Railway. 

HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2011b. Preliminary Environmental Report (Draft), Proposed Rail Line 

Relocation, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway, Jefferson & Plaquemines Parishes, 

Louisiana. 

HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2015. Movable Bridge Assessment, New Orleans Gulf Coast 

Railroad, Site Investigation for Intra Coastal Canal Crossing, Belle Chasse, Louisiana. Draft 

August 28, 2015.

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD). 2014. Bridge Design and 

Evaluation Manual. Dated 11/17/2014. 

Plaquemines Parish Government (PPG). 2012. Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Master Plan, 

Technical Addendum to the Community Assessment, Section 4: Multi-modal 

Transportation Systems. 

Regional Planning Commission (RPC). 2015. Metropolitan Transportation Plan, New Orleans 

Urbanized Area, Fiscal Years 2015-2044. Adopted 1/13/2015. 

Regional Planning Commission (RPC). 2014. Transportation Improvement Program, New Orleans 

Urbanized Area, Fiscal Years 2015-18.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013a. “West Bank & Vicinity, Updated June 2013.” 

Accessed January 29, 2016. 

www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/PAO/FactSheets/WBV.pdf. 

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013b. “West Closure Complex, Updated June 2013.” 

Accessed January 26, 2016. 

www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/PAO/FactSheets/WCC.pdf. 

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2012. Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery IV Grant Application, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railroad Coal Export 

Extension, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. TIGER ID: kkeller39688. 

US Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration (Lead Agency), the Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development, and the Regional Planning Commission 

for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes 

(USDOT/LADOTD/RPC). 2008. Lower Harvey Canal Crossing, Final Environmental 

Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, LA, 

State Project No. 700-26-0274, FAP No. 2603, RPC No. 26-0274 JP. Prepared by N-Y 

Associates, Inc. Metairie. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 9-5 

9.3 GIS Layer Data Sources 

GIS Layer Name Source: Data 

Steward

Publish 

Date Notes

NAS JRB: New 

Orleans

NAS JRB, GCR, Inc., 

JLUS Plan

2015

Relocation Corridor GCR, Inc. 2015

Study Area GCR, Inc. 2015

Study Area Mask GCR, Inc. 2015

Alternative Routes HDR Engineering, 

Inc./GCR, Inc.

2013

Places 2013 TIGER files, US 

Census

2013

Cities and Towns 2013 TIGER files, US 

Census

2013

Rail Road Cad Files HDR Engineering, 

Inc./GCR, Inc.

2015

Existing NOGC 

Railway

GCR, Inc. 2015

Roads 2013 TIGER files, US 

Census

2013

Recent Projects GCR, Inc. 2015

Proposed Road 

Projects

GCR, Inc. 2015

Flood Control System 2015 National Levee 

Database: USACE

2015

Water 2013 TIGER files, US 

Census

2013

Zoning City of Gretna, 

Plaquemines Parish, 

Jefferson Parish

2016

Land Use City of Gretna, 

Plaquemines Parish, 

Jefferson Parish

2016

Basemap ESRI 2016

ESRI World Imagery Source: ESRI, 

DigitalGlobe, 

GeoEye, Earthstar 

Geographics, 

CNES/Airbus DS, 

USDA, USGS, AEX, 

Getmapping, 

Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, 

swisstopo, and the 

GIS User 

Community

2010 World Imagery provides one meter or better 

satellite and aerial imagery in many parts of the 

world and lower resolution satellite imagery 

worldwide. The map includes 15m TerraColor 

imagery at small and mid-scales (591M down to 

72k) and 2.5m SPOT Imagery (288k to 72k) for the 

world, and USGS 15m Landsat imagery for 

Antarctica. The map features 0.3m resolution 

imagery in the continental United States and 0.6m 

resolution imagery in parts of Western Europe 

from Digital Globe. Recent 1m USDA NAIP imagery 

is available in select states of the US. In other 

parts of the world, 1 meter resolution imagery is 

available from GeoEye IKONOS, Getmapping, 

AeroGRID, IGN Spain, and IGP Portugal. 

Additionally, imagery at different resolutions has 

been contributed by the GIS User Community. For 

more information on this map, including the terms 

of use, visit us online.
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 9-6 

GIS Layer Name Source: Data 

Steward

Publish 

Date Notes

Community Facilities 

GNIS Features

GNIS USGS 2013 The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) 

is the Federal and national standard for 

geographic nomenclature. The US Geological 

Survey developed the GNIS in support of the US

Board on Geographic Names as the official 

repository of domestic geographic names data, 

the official vehicle for geographic names use by all 

departments of the Federal Government, and the 

source for applying geographic names to Federal 

electronic and printed products. The database 

assigns a unique, permanent feature identifier, the 

Feature ID, as the only standard Federal key for 

accessing, integrating, or reconciling feature data 

from multiple data sets. The GNIS collects data 

from a broad program of partnerships with 

Federal, state, and local government agencies and 

other authorized contributors, and provides data 

to all levels of government, to the public, and to 

numerous applications through a web query site, 

web map and feature services, file download 

services, and customized files upon request

Census Blocks 2010 Decennial Census. The US Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the United State every 

10 years. This is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state is to receive in the 

US House of Representatives

Census Block Groups 2010 Decennial Census. The US Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the United States every 

10 years. This is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state is to receive in the 

US House of Representatives

Census Tracts 2010 Decennial Census. The US Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the United States every 

10 years. This is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state is to receive in the 

US House of Representatives

Demographics: 

Population

US Census SF1 

Tables

2010 Decennial Census. The US Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the United States every 

10 years. This is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state is to receive in the 

US House of Representatives

Demographics: Race US Census SF1 

Tables

2010 Decennial Census. The US Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the United States every 

10 years. This is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state is to receive in the 

US House of Representatives
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 10-1 

10.0 GLOSSARY 

The following terms are specifically defined as they are used in this study and document. 

Adverse (impacts). Negative or detrimental impacts or effects. 

Affected Environment. The physical, biological, social, and economic setting potentially 

affected by one or more of the alternatives being considered. 

Air Quality. A measure of the concentrations of pollutants in the air. 

Alignment. The general horizontal and vertical location of the centerline of the proposed 

railroad tracks. 

Alignment Alternatives. The general location for tracks, structures and systems for the system 

between logical points within the Relocation Corridor. 

Alternative. A variation of a rail corridor segment to mitigate a potential adverse environmental 

or engineering factor. 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association (AREMA). North American body 

for determination of railway engineering standards. 

At-Grade. At ground surface level; a term used to describe roadways, river crossings, and 

track alignments. 

Attainment. When an air basin meets the Federal or state standards set for a particular 

pollutant. See also Nonattainment. 

A-Weighted Noise Level. A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the 

response of the human ear, so it describes the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a 

noise source. 

Borrow. Material, such as sand and gravel, which is extracted from an excavation or pit area 

that can be used to fill another site. 

Clearance Limits. The dimensions beyond which the size of, or projections of a shipment may 

not extend in order to clear such things as switch stands, platforms, tunnels, and low bridges. 

Context Sensitive Solution. A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all 

stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves 

scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility 

(FHWA). 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 10-2 

Construction. Any activity related to building projects, including highways or rail infrastructure 

(e.g., track, yards, bridges) that directly alters the environment. 

Crossing (Track). A structure, used where one track crosses another at grade, and consisting of 

four connected frogs. 

Cultural Resources. Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural 

systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the 

culture. These include, but are not limited to sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects 

associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events. 

Cumulative Impact. As defined by NEPA, and impact on the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. 

Curved Track. Curved track is measured by degrees, with most main track curves falling 

between 1 and 5 degrees. The degree of curvature is the angle subtended at the center of a 

simple curve by a 100-foot chord. Curves require more power from locomotives, and the forces 

present while a train negotiates a curve increases rail and car wear. Stronger track, ties and 

additional spikes are used in curves in order to take the added loads. 

Decibels (dB). A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity. 

Endangered Species. A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part 

of its range, and has a formal listing of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered 

Species Act. See also Threatened Species. 

Environment. Includes water, air and land and all plants and humans and other animals living 

therein, and the interrelationship existing among these. 

Environmental Assessment (EA). A detailed information document that analyzes a project’s 

potential effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to reduce the 

significant effects. This document is part of the NEPA environmental review process. 

Environmental Justice. Identifying and addressing the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. 

Erosion. Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or 

wind. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 10-3 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). A Federal agency that serves as the principal 

organization for assistance to the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to rail 

transport and safety. 

Floodplain. The lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and 

floodprone areas of offshore islands including, at a minimum, that area inundated by a 1 

percent or greater chance flood in any given year. The base floodplain is defined as the 100-

year (1 percent) floodplain. The critical action floodplain is defined as the 500-year (0.2 percent) 

floodplain. 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS). An information management system designed to store 

and analyze data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates. 

Grade Crossing. The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an 

intersection of two or more highways; an intersection of two railroads. 

Grade Separated. At different elevations; on separate levels. 

Groundwater. Water contained and transmitted through open spaces in rock and sediment 

below the ground surface. 

Habitat. An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by 

animals for a particular purpose, such as roosting or breeding. 

Hazardous Materials. Cargo that poses a risk to individuals and/or the environment, the 

movement of which is governed by the Department of Transportation and other regulations. 

Hazardous Materials (hazmat) include corrosive materials, poisons and explosives among other 

substances. 

Impact. For an EA, the positive or negative effect of an action (past, present, or future) on the 

natural environment (land use, air quality, water resources, geological resources, ecological 

resources, aesthetic and scenic resources) and the human environment (infrastructure, 

economics, social, and cultural). 

Invasive Species. An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. 

Lead Agency. The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or 

approving a project or action and is thus responsible for preparing environmental review 

documents in compliance with NEPA. FRA is the lead agency for this EA. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 10-4 

Level of Service (LOS). A qualitative measure used to relate the quality of traffic service. LOS is 

used to analyze highways by categorizing traffic flow and assigning quality levels of traffic based 

on performance measure like speed, density, etc.

Minority Population. A community, census block, or block group in which the portion of the 

population of a racial or ethnic minority is 50 percent or greater. 

Mitigation. Action or measure undertaken to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the 

adverse impacts of a project, practice, action or activity. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Federal standards stipulating the 

allowable ambient concentrations of specific criteria pollutants. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Federal legislation requiring Federal 

agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major Federal projects or decisions, to share 

information with the public, to identity and assess reasonable alternatives, and to coordinate 

efforts with other planning and environmental reviews taking place. 

No Action. Under NEPA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no 

infrastructure would be built and no new management or operational practices would be 

instituted). 

No-Build Alternative. Represents the rail system in the Study Area as it is today and how it 

would develop in the future without the proposed rail relocation project. 

Noise. Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing; if intense 

enough, it can damage hearing. 

Nonattainment. When an air basin does not meet the Federal or state standards set for a 

particular pollutant. See also Attainment. 

Preferred Alternative. The alternative identified as preferred by the lead agency. 

Prime Farmland. Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics 

for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum 

inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion. 

Purpose and Need. The reason(s) why a project or action is undertaken and the need(s) it is 

intended to meet or fulfill. 

Rail. A rolled steel shape, commonly a T-section, designed to be laid end to end in two parallel 

lines on crossties or other suitable supports to form a track for railway rolling stock. It has three 

main parts: 

1. The head that comes into contact with car wheels; 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 10-5 

2. The web, which is the thinner, middle part of the rail; and 

3. The base.

Relocation Corridor. The geographic area that follows the general route of the proposed rail 

relocation project. 

Remnant Parcel. Locations along the corridor where the required right-of-way for the project 

would leave parcels isolated. Damages to the remaining portions of these parcels would likely 

occur. Therefore, in certain locations, it is recommended that these remnant parcels are 

purchased as part of the overall ROW acquisition for the project. 

Right-of-Way (ROW). The property owned by a railway company on which tracks have been 

laid, including the track and land surrounding that track. 

Scoping. A process used under NEPA to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to 

identify the significant issues related to the proposed action or project to be addressed in an 

EA. 

Section 4(f). Provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the US Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (23 CFR 771.135) and subsequently codified in 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, 

Section 303(c). The Section 4(f) provisions address the potential for conflicts between 

transportation needs and the protection of lands for recreational use and resource 

conservation by regulating the use of publicly-owned parkland, recreation areas, and historic 

sites. Specifically, they prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from approving any program or 

project that would require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation 

area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national significance as 

determined by the officials having jurisdiction over these lands, unless there are no feasible and 

prudent alternatives to the use of these lands. In addition, a proposed program or project must 

include all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the proposed use. 

Signal. Visual indication passed to the locomotive engineer to advise the speed, direction or 

route of the train. Some signals are: engine whistle signals, display of headlights, markers, blue 

signal protection, signals imperfectly displayed, and emergency protection signals. 

Stakeholder. A person or organization with an interest in or affected by FRA actions 

(representatives from Federal, state, tribal, or local agencies; members of Congress or state 

legislatures; unions; educational groups; environmental groups; industrial groups, etc.; and 

members of the general public). 

Station. A horizontal measurement on engineering drawings designating locations along a 

transportation system, such as a road or rail alignment. The distance between stations is 100 

feet, which is related to the 100-foot chains that surveyors formerly used to mark distances. 
Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

March 2018 10-6 

Study Area. The geographical area that includes both the existing NOGC Railway and the 

proposed Relocation Corridor within portions of Jefferson and Plaquemines Parish.

Subballast. Rock, gravel or other granular material placed on a road bed to support cross ties 

and rails and to aid in holding the desired track geometry. 

Subdivision. A portion of the railroad designated by time table. See also Time Table. 

Threatened Species. A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range. See also Endangered Species. 

Time Table. The document that contains subdivision information footnotes and special 

instructions relating to movements of trains, engines and track units. See also Subdivision. 

Track. An assembly of rails, ties, and fastenings over which cars, locomotives, and trains are 

moved. 

Train. An engine or more than one engine coupled, with or without cars, or a track unit(s) so 

designated by its operating authority, displaying a marker(s). 

Vibration. The rapid linear motion of a compression wave in the ground caused by a single or 

repeated force or impact to the ground as in the action of a pile driver or a tire hitting a bump 

or pothole in a road. 

Vibration Decibels (VdB). Indicates decibels relative to a reference quantity of one microinch 

per second (10−6 in/s). See also Decibels.

Wetland. An area of ground that is saturated with water either permanently or 

seasonally. A community composed of hydric soil and hydrophytes. 

Wye. Railway tracks arranged in the form of a “Y” which are used for turning locomotives and 

rail cars in the opposite direction. 

Yard. A system of tracks within defined limits provided for making up trains, storing cars, and 

other purposes, over which movements not authorized by time table or by train-order may be 

made, subject to prescribed signals and rules, or special instructions. 
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix A

Alternatives Analysis Maps

   
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
MISSISSIPPIRIVER

LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)

(FINAL CONFIGURATION AND

PROPOSED HERO YARD

HARVEYCANAL

COUSINS CANAL

LA

11

MURPHYCANAL

WOODMERE

HARVEY

NAS JRB

NEW ORLEANS

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

3000 3000 6000

LA

23

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

GULF

INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAY

4TH

ST

PETERS RD

LAPALCO

BLVD

ST J0SEPH ST

BAYOU

BARATARIA

EXHIBIT

GRETNA DESTREHAN AVE

LAPALCO BLVD

OVERVIEW MAP

CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS

FIGURE 2

BARATARIA BLVD

MANHATTAN

BLVD

HARVEY

BLVD

US

90B

400

190

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

LEGEND

TBS

OPTION 1 RPC TASK LA23RR1

CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT

OPTION 2

CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT

OPTION 3

CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT

OPTION 4

CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY

JUL 17 2015
HARVEYCANAL

COUSINS CANAL

MURPHYCANAL

WOODMERE

HARVEY

4TH

ST

PETERS RD

LAPALCO

BLVD

ST J0SEPH ST

DESTREHAN AVE

LAPALCO BLVD

BARATARIA BLVD

MANHATTAN

BLVD

HARVEY

BLVD

US

90B

EXHIBIT

WOODLAND OAKS

WOODLAND WEST

VILLAGE GREEN

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

1500 1500 3000

A AND B

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

PAILET AVE

PATRIOT

ST

US

90B

MARRERO

CASINO

BOOMTOWN

HYBRID ALTERNATIVE A/B

IMAGERY SOURCE: NAIP 2013

SEP 30 2015

ALONG PETERS RD

CONTINUED ALIGNMENT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

LEGEND

TBS

RPC TASK LA23RR1

PROPOSED BRIDGE

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY

ROAD EXTENSION

PROPOSED PETERS

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE A

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE B
MISSISSIPPIRIVER

LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)

(FINAL CONFIGURATION AND

PROPOSED HERO YARD

LA 11

NAS JRB

NEW ORLEANS

LA

23

PETERS

ROAD

EXTENSION

GULF

INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAY

BAYOU

BARATARIA

EXHIBIT

HARVEY

BUCCANEER RD

E

B

AYOU

RD

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

1500 1500 3000

CHASSE

BELLE

A AND B

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

BRIDGE

MOVEABLE

PROPOSED

BRIDGE

MOVEABLE

PROPOSED

HYBRID ALTERNATIVE A/B

IMAGERY SOURCE: NAIP 2013

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEP 30 2015

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

LEGEND

TBS

RPC TASK LA23RR1

PROPOSED BRIDGE

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY

ROAD EXTENSION

PROPOSED PETERS

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE A

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE B

Hwy 11

MMMM


Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix B

Preferred Alternative Conceptual Plans

   
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAY

PETERS ROAD

PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE

PROPOSED HERO YARD

HARVEY CANAL

BARATARIA

BAYOU

LA 23

4TH ST

LA 18/

US 90B

LAPALCO BLVD

BARRIERE

BAYOU

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

US 90B

DESTREHAN

AVE

N

DRAFTENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

400 400 800

PROJECT AREA

CONCEPTUAL PLANS 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION

JUNE 17, 2016


TYPICAL SECTIONS

C

12'

SHLD

12' 12' 8'

LANE LANE LANE

ROW

EXIST.

ROW

C EXIST.

SHLD

8'

AVG

10' 17'

C

SHLD

8'

SHLD LANE LANE

8'

3:1

2%

C

RAILROAD

L PROPOSED

2%

ROW

PROP.

ROW

PROP.

3:1

MIN. 12" BALLAST

136# RE (TYP.)

9' WOOD TIE

MIN. 8" SUBBALLAST

3:1

3:1

2:1

MIN. 12" SUBGRADE

12"

25 '

50 '

15 ' 25 '

5 '

2 ' 2 '

12 '

ROW

PROP.

'

2% 2%

80

L RELOCATED PETERS ROAD

VARIES VARIES

PROPOSED SECTION (LAPALCO BLVD TO HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION)

12' 12'

L EXISTING PETERS ROAD

EXISTING SECTION @ PETERS RD. (EX. HOOPER SPUR TO LAPALCO BLVD)

N.T.S.

N.T.S.

AVG

10'

C

ROW

PROP.

ROW

PROP.

N.T.S.

RAILROAD

L PROPOSED

PROPOSED SECTION (HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION TO SIDING)

VARIES VARIES

RAILROAD

L EXISTING 

50'-*300'

C

25' 25'

ROW

PROP.

ROW

PROP.

50'

N.T.S.

RAILROAD

L PROPOSED

PROPOSED SECTION (4TH ST TO EX. HOOPER SPUR)

4

IS GREATER DUE TO INCREASED RAILROAD ELEVATION AND WIDER EMBANKMENT FILLS.

*NOTE: ROW WIDTH AT THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF THE GIWW BRIDGE 

SHEET 4

VARIES (20' TO 35')

HOOPER SPUR ROW

FLOODWALL

BOOMTOWN 

FOR PETERS ROAD

40' REQUIRED ROW 

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

MAY 27 2016
PROPOSED SECTION @ HERO YARD 

TYPICAL SECTIONS

C C

25' 25'

ROW

PROP.

ROW

PROP.

VARIES

25'

C

25' 25'

ROW

C PROP.

TRACK

L YARD C

TRACK

L YARD C

TRACK

L YARD C

TRACK

L YARD C

TRACK

L YARD

20' 20' 20' 20' 25' 25'

CL SIDING

285'

25' 20' 20' 20' 20'

ROW

PROP.

TRACK

CL YARD

TRACK

CL YARD

TRACK

CL YARD

TRACK

CL YARD

TRACK

CL YARD

130' 155'

C

25' 25'

ROW

PROP.

ROW

PROP.

50'

N.T.S.

RAILROAD

L PROPOSED L PROPOSED SIDING

RAILROAD

L PROPOSED

N.T.S.

N.T.S.

PROPOSED SECTION (SOUTH OF HERO YARD)

RAILROAD

L PROPOSED

PROPOSED SIDING (TO HERO YARD) 

5

SHEET 5

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

MAY 27 2016
GOLD

STREET

BASCULE BRIDGE

HARVEY CANAL 

TUNNEL

HARVEY CANAL 

A-1

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

N

RESTAURANT

THE POINT

FABACHER

ASSOCIATES

CLEAN GULF

& CONTROL

MEASUREMENT

DANIEL

SUPPLY

FILTERS &

LAWSON

REPAIR

K & J TRUCK

SERVICE

DIESEL

K & S

REPAIR

QUICK

& FUEL BOLLINGER

RETIF OIL

ABC CASTER

LAND

JEFFERSON

SYSTEMS

POWER

FORCE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-1

MATCHLINE

A

-

A

SPUR

HOOPER 

UPRR

ST JOSEPH ST.

8TH

STREET

BR

NK I

ER

STREET

DESTREHAN AVENUE

GREFER AVE

GOLD

STREET

JENN

EI

STREET

PETERS ROAD

BR

NK I

ER

ST

HARVEYCANAL

U

S

90B

W

B

U

S

90B

EB

LA

18/4TH

STREET

0+00

5+00

10+00

15+00

20+00

25+00

30+00

35+00

40+00

45+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L
M

A

T

C

H

L

I

NE

A

-

A

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

B

-

B

A-2

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

CONSTRUCTION

STEWART

STUDENT

FIRST

MARINE LLC

ASHTON

SERVICES

ENERGY

SUPERIOR

MANAGEMENT

WASTE

MARINE

MIDSHIP

CHEVRON

STEVENSON

STEWART &

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-2

PAILET AVE

ESTALOTE AVE

14

TH

S

T

16

TH

S

T

18

TH

S

T

FLO

R

EN

C

E

S

T

NO

R

MAN

S

T

S

DI

N

EY

S

T

PETERS ROAD

DESTREHAN AVENUE

NO

R

MAN

S

T

HARVEY CANAL

50+0055+0060+0065+0070+0075+0080+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L
A

MI EE

S

T

3

6

TH

S

T

3

8

TH

S

T

LE

STER

S

T

DESTREHAN AVE

PETERS ROAD

HARVEY CANAL

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

B

-

B

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

C

-

C

JO

S

EP

H

S

T

A-3

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

SALATHE OIL

MARINE

L & L

TEMPLET

CRANE &

FERRELLGAS

GROUP

POWER

RESOURCE

& FABRICATION

ALUMA MARINE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-3

PETERS ROAD

DESTREHAN AVE

S DN I

EY

S

T

A

MI EE

S

T

3

6

TH

S

T

3

8

TH

S

T

JO

S

EP

H

S

T

A

MI EE

S

T

36

TH

S

T

LE

STER

S

T

HARVEY CANAL

95+0085+0090+00

100+00105+00110+00115+00120+00125+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTION 1

FIGURE A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L
BREAUX

AVE

LAPALCO

BLVD

HARVEYCANAL

LAPALCO FLOODGATE

BREAUX

AVE

SHELTER

ANIMAL

WESTBANK

BOOMTOWN FLOODWALL

MATCHLINE

C

-

C

MATCHLINE

D

-

D

A-4

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

INDUSTRIES

DYNAMIC

EMARYD

HYDRAULICS

HYDRADYNE

WOODLAND OAKS

DEAN EQUIPMENT

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-4

LAPALCO

BLVD

-

PETERS

RD

ENTRANCE/EXIT

RAM

P

CONTRACTORS

ELECTRICAL

A-1

BREAUX

AVE

ST JOSEPH LN

LAPALCO

BLVD

DESTREHAN AVE

BREAUX

AVE

PETERS ROAD

HARVEYCANAL

MURPHYCANAL

LAPALCO FLOODGATE

FLOODWALL

COUSINS CANAL

130+00

135+00

140+00

145+00

150+00

155+00

160+00

165+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L
MAT

C

HL

I

NE

D

-

D

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

NE

E

-

E

A-5

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

WOODLAND WEST

CONTRACTORS

CHET MORRISON

VARCO

OILWELL

NATIONAL

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-5

SUBSTATION

ELECTRIC

ENTERGY

TOWER

TRANSMISSION

ENTERGY

HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION

(NOTPARTOFTHIS PROJECT)

PROPOSED HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION

262' ROW

EXTENSION ROW

HARVEY BLVD 

WAREHOUSES

ABANDONED

PETERS RD

HARVEYCANAL

MURPHYCANAL

BOOMTOWN FLOODWALL

170+00

175+00

180+00

185+00

190+00

195+00

200+00

205+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L
FLOODWALL

BOOMTOWN 

MATCHLINE

EE

MATCHLINE

FF

A-6

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

VILLAGE GREEN

& TRAILER PARK

HASSEL'S RV

FMT SHIPYARD

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-6

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

CASINO

BOOMTOWN

ACCESS RD 1

PETERS RD

HARVEYCANAL

MURPHYCANAL

210+00

215+00

220+00

225+00

230+00

235+00

240+00

245+00

250+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

SEE SHEET C-1

BRIDGE

PROPOSED
M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

F

-

F

MATCHLINE

G-G

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

PETERS RD

BAYOU

BARATARIA

A-7

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PULL-A-PART

CONTRACTORS

PITTMAN GROUP

CONCORD

RD

ES & H

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-7

AND C-3

SEE SHEETS C-2

PROPOSED BRIDGE

ENG

NI

EER

S

RD

UNITED

TUGS

RD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

PETERS RD

MURPHYCANAL

ENG

NI EER

S

RD

255+00

260+00

265+00

270+00

275+00

280+00

285+00

290+00

295+00
MATCHLINE

GG

MATCHLINE

H

-

H

GULF

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

A-8

PART OF THIS PROJECT)

ROAD EXTENSION (NOT

PROPOSED PETERS

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

GUNTHER LN

EQUIPMENT

ACC

A

ESS

ERIAL

CONCORD

RD

DIVING

J& J

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-8

BUCCANEER

RD

E

BAYOU

RD

ENG

NI

EERS

RD

300+00

305+00

310+00

31

5+00

320+00

325+00

330+00

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

C-2 AND C-3

BRIDGE SEE SHEETS

PROPOSED MOVEABLE

SEE SHEET C-4

PROPOSED BRIDGE
MAT

C

HL

I

NE

H

-

H

MATCHLINE

I-I

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

A-9

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-9

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

BUCCANEER RD

335+00

340+00

345+00

350+00

355+00

360+00

365+00

370+00

375+00

380+00
MATCHLINE

I-I

BUCCANEER RD

MATCHLINE

J

-

J

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

BAYOU

BARRIERE

A-10

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-10

ACCESS

RD

2

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

BUCCANEER RD

LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)

(FINALCONFIGURATION AND

PROPOSED HERO YARD

405+00

380+00

385+00

390+00

395+00

400+00

410+00

415+00

420+00

SEE SHEET C-5

PROPOSED BRIDGE
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)

(FINAL CONFIGURATION AND

PROPOSED HERO YARD

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

J

-

J

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

K

-

K

A-11

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-11

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

420+00425+00430+00435+00440+00445+00

450+00455+00460+00
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTION 1

FIGURE A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

BURT

DR

RIVER OAKS DR

CEDAR DR

JOY LN

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

LA

23

HWY

11

465+00

470+00

475+00

480+00

485+00

488+07

BURT

DR

CLAUSEN RD

CEDAR DR

MATCHLINE

K

-

K

MATCHLINE M-M

MATCHLINE L-L

A-12

LEVEE

EXISTING

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

EXXON

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-12

ACCESS

RD

3

CROSSING

AT-GRADE 

PROPOSED 
A-13

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

& MARINE

EPIC DIVERS

DO

C

K

S

DI

E

RD

S

EW

ER

P

LAN

T

RD

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

L

-

L

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-13

& MARINE

EPIC DIVERS

HWY 11

ENVIRON SERVICES

TRENTSEVERN

SOLID WASTE

PLAQUEMINES PARISH

CHEVRON ORONITE

PARK

CHEVRON

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

BUCCANEER

RD

LA 23
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

EXISTING NOGC RAILWAY PROPOSED BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTING TRACK

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION

RELOCATION (C )

PROPOSED PETERS ROAD 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C ) L

L

CLAUSEN

RD

CEDAR

GROVE

LN

BERGERON

DR

W

ALKER

RD

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

HWY 11

LA 23

MAT

C

HL

I

NE

M

-

M

A-14

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

LEVEE

EXISTING

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET A-14

ACCESS

RD

4

E

W

ALKER

RD

BADALAM

ENTI

LN

OAKV

LLE I

ST

E

ST

PETER

ST

W

ST

PETER

ST

METALS

RIVERSIDE 

CHURCH

BAPTIST 

MISSIONARY 

OAKVILLE 

& FAB

C&J WELDING 

SEAFOOD MRKT

CAPT LARRY'S

ARCH

SOUTHERN
MATCHLINE

A

-

A

GOLD

STREET

BASCULE BRIDGE

HARVEY CANAL 

TUNNEL

HARVEY CANAL 

B-1

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

N

RESTAURANT

THE POINT

FABACHER

ASSOCIATES

CLEAN GULF

& CONTROL

MEASUREMENT

DANIEL

SUPPLY

FILTERS &

LAWSON

REPAIR

K & J TRUCK

SERVICE

DIESEL

K & S

REPAIR

QUICK

BOLLINGER

& FUEL

RETIF OIL

ABC CASTER

LAND

JEFFERSON

SYSTEMS

POWER

FORCE

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-1

PROPOSED 50' ROW

SPUR ROW (VARIES)

EXISTING UPRR HOOPER

ST JOSEPH ST.

8TH

STREET

BR

NK I

ER

STREET

DESTREHAN AVENUE

GREFER AVE

GOLD

STREET

JENN

EI

STREET

PETERS ROAD

BR

NK I

ER

ST

HARVEYCANAL

U

S

90B

W

B

U

S

90B

EB

LA

18/4TH

STREET

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 
M

A

T

C

H

L

I

NE

A

-

A

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

B

-

B

B-2

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

CONSTRUCTION

STEWART

STUDENT

FIRST

MARINE LLC

ASHTON

SERVICES

ENERGY

SUPERIOR

MANAGEMENT

WASTE

MARINE

MIDSHIP

CHEVRON

STEVENSON

STEWART &

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-2

SPUR ROW (VARIES)

EXISTING UPRR HOOPER

PAILET AVE

ESTALOTE AVE

14

TH

S

T

16

TH

S

T

18

TH

S

T

FLO

R

EN

C

E

S

T

NO

R

MAN

S

T

S

DI

N

EY

S

T

PETERS ROAD

DESTREHAN AVENUE

NO

R

MAN

S

T

HARVEY CANAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 
A

MI EE

S

T

3

6

TH

S

T

3

8

TH

S

T

DESTREHAN AVE

PETERS ROAD

HARVEY CANAL

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

B

-

B

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

C

-

C

B-3

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

SALATHE OIL

MARINE

L & L

TEMPLET

CRANE &

FERRELLGAS GROUP

POWER

RESOURCE

& FABRICATION

ALUMA MARINE

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-3

SPUR ROW (VARIES)

EXISTING UPRR HOOPER

PETERS ROAD

DESTREHAN AVE

S DN I

EY

S

T

A

MI EE

S

T

3

6

TH

S

T

3

8

TH

S

T

JO

S

EP

H

S

T

A

MI EE

S

T

36

TH

S

T

LE

STER

S

T

HARVEY CANAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTION 1

FIGURE A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 
LAPALCO

BLVD

HARVEYCANAL

LAPALCO FLOODGATE

SHELTER

ANIMAL

WESTBANK

BOOMTOWN FLOODWALL

MATCHLINE

C

-

C

MATCHLINE

D

-

D

B-4

PROPOSED 80'ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

INDUSTRIES

DYNAMIC

EMARYD

HYDRAULICS

HYDRADYNE

WOODLAND OAKS

DEAN EQUIPMENT

PROPOSED 50'ROW

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-4

SPUR ROW (VARIES)

EXISTING UPRR HOOPER

LAPALCO

BLVD

-

PETERS

RD

ENTRANCE/EXIT

RAM

P

CONTRACTORS

ELECTRICAL

A-1

BREAUX

AVE

ST JOSEPH LN

LAPALCO

BLVD

DESTREHAN AVE

BREAUX

AVE

PETERS ROAD

HARVEYCANAL

MURPHYCANAL

LAPALCO FLOODGATE

FLOODWALL

COUSINS CANAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 
MAT

C

HL

I

NE

D

-

D

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

NE

E

-

E

B-5

PROPOSED 50'ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

WOODLAND WEST

CONTRACTORS

CHET MORRISON

VARCO

OILWELL

NATIONAL

PROPOSED 80'ROW

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-5

HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION ROW

262' ROW

(NOTPARTOFTHIS PROJECT)

PROPOSED HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION

SUBSTATION

ELECTRIC

ENTERGY

TOWER

TRANSMISSION

ENTERGY

HARVEY BLVD EXTENSION

PETERS RD

HARVEYCANAL

MURPHYCANAL

BOOMTOWN FLOODWALL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 
FLOODWALL

BOOMTOWN 

MATCHLINE

EE

MATCHLINE

FF

B-6

PROPOSED 50' ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

VILLAGE GREEN

& TRAILER PARK

HASSELL'S RV

FMT SHIPYARD

PROPOSED 80' ROW

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-6

CASINO

BOOMTOWN

ACCESS RD 1

PETERS RD

HARVEYCANAL

MURPHYCANAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

BRIDGE

PROPOSED
M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

F

-

F

MATCHLINE

G-G

BRIDGE

PROPOSED

PETERS RD

BAYOU

BARATARIA

B-7

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PULL-A-PART

CONTRACTORS

PITTMAN GROUP

CONCORD

RD

ES & H

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-7

250'

ENG

NI

EER

S

RD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

PETERS RD

MURPHYCANAL

ENG

NI EER

S

RD

PROPOSED ROW
MATCHLINE

GG

MATCHLINE

H

-

H

GULF

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

B-8

PART OF THIS PROJECT)

ROAD EXTENSION (NOT

PROPOSED PETERS

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

GUNTHER LN

EQUIPMENT

ACC

A

ESS

ERIAL

DIVING

J& J

PROPOSED ROW

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-8

BUCCANEER

RD

E

BAYOU

RD

ENG

NI

EERS

RD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

BRIDGE

MOVEABLE

PROPOSED

300'
MAT

C

HL

I

NE

H

-

H

MATCHLINE

I-I

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

B-9

PROPOSED 50' ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-9

DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE RAILROAD LOADING. 

FOR RAILROAD ALIGNMENT. CULVERT EXTENSIONS SHALL BE 

FOR PETERS ROAD EXTENSION WILL REQUIRE EXTENSION 

TWO PROPOSED CULVERTS AS SHOWN IN DESIGN PLANS 

NOTE:

SEE NOTE.

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

BUCCANEER RD

LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)

(FINAL CONFIGURATION AND

PROPOSED HERO YARD

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

J

-

J

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

K

-

K

B-11

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

PROPOSED 285'ROW

PROPOSED 75'ROW

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-11

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OPTION 1

FIGURE A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

BURT

DR

RIVER OAKS DR

CEDAR DR

JOY LN

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

LA

23

HWY

11

BURT

DR

CLAUSEN RD

CEDAR DR

MATCHLINE

K

-

K

MATCHLINE M-M

MATCHLINE L-L

B-12

LEVEE

EXISTING

PROPOSED 50' ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

EXXON

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-12

PROPOSED 75' ROW

CROSSING

PROPOSED AT-GRADE 

PROPOSED 50' ROW

PROPOSED 50' ROW

ACCESS

RD

3
B-13

PROPOSED 50' ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

& MARINE

EPIC DIVERS

DO

C

K

S

DI

E

RD

S

EW

ER

P

LAN

T

RD

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

L

-

L ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-13

HWY 11

SOLID WASTE

PLAQUEMINES PARISH

CHEVRON ORONITE

ENVIRON SERVICES

TRENTSEVERN

PARK

CHEVRON

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

BUCCANEER

RD

LA 23
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

LAB

MHL

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

JUNE 17 2016

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ROW

PROPOSED TRACK ROW

PETERS ROAD EXTENSION ROW

ACQUISITION ROADWAY

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

ACQUISITION RAILROAD

ESTIMATED PROPERTY 

CLAUSEN

RD

CEDAR

GROVE

LN

BERGERON

DR

W

ALKER

RD

MISSISSIPPIRIVER

HWY 11

LA 23

MAT

C

HL

I

NE

M

-

M

B-14

OF THIS PROJECT)

EXTENSION (NOT PART

PROPOSED PETERS RD

LEVEE

EXISTING

PROPOSED 50' ROW

N

0

S C A L E I N F E E T

300 300 600

ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SHEET B-14

SEAFOOD MRKT

CAPT LARRY'S

E

ST

PETER

ST

W

ST

PETER

S

CHURCH T

BAPTIST 

MISSIONARY 

OAKVILLE 

OAKV

LLE I

ST

BADALAM

ENTI

LN

METALS

RIVERSIDE 

& FAB

C&J WELDING 

E

W

ALKER

RD

ACCESS

RD

4

ARCH

SOUTHERN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

PRELIMINARY

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

RJB

SSS

JUNE 6 2016

BRIDGE OVER MURPHY CANAL

SHEET C-1

C-1

PLAN

SCALE:‘"=1'-0"

ELEVATION

SCALE: ‘"=1'-0"

MURPHY CANAL

FLOW

RIGHT

SECTION

SCALE: ..."=1'-0"

(TYP.)

SLOPE 2%

†" DECK PLATE

FLOOR PLATE (TYP.)

RAISED PATTERN

DIAGRAM 

AREMA CLEARANCE

GIRDER

LOW CHORD

CANAL BANK

PERMANENT SHORING PERMANENT SHORING

CANAL BANK

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPOSED RAILROAD

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPOSED RAILROAD

45°

45°

` BENT #1

` BENT #2

25'-0" 25'-0"

2" 2"

160'-4" (INSIDE FACE TO INSIDE FACE OF BACKWALLS)

ALIGNMENT: TANGENT

` PROPOSED BRIDGE` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

WATER LEVEL

DESIGN STORM

FREEBOARD

1'-0" MIN.

AS REQUIRED

SHORING WALL

PERMANENT

3'-2... "

LOW CHORD =

B/R TO

` PROPOSED BRIDGE

` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

MIN. CLEAR

9'-0"

WATER LEVEL

NORMAL

77'-0"+

-

` GIRDER

` GIRDER

BRIDGE SET LEVEL

160' THROUGH PLATE GIRDER SPAN

160' THROUGH PLATE GIRDER SPAN

FLOOR BEAM

W14x283 END

@ KNEE BRACE)

FLOOR BEAM (W14x193

W14x159 INTERMEDIATE 

BACKWALL (TYP.)

PRECAST CONCRETE

(TYP.)

WINGWALL

CONCRETE

PRECAST

FIXED BEARING
CL PIER CL ABUTMENT

C

ABUTMENT

L 

CL PIER

SS

PD

C-2

JUNE 6 2016

BRIDGE ELEVATION

1"=50'

50' 0' 50'

118' 209'

206' APPROACH SPAN 329' MOVABLE SPAN 209' APPROACH SPAN

45'

6' CLEARANCE

GIWW CROSSING BRIDGE ELEVATION 

6' CLEARANCE

SHEET C-2

EL. TBD

MEAN HIGH WATER

EL. TBD

TOP OF RAIL

EL. TBD

TOP OF LEVEE

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA PRELIMINARY

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00
L PROPOSED RAIL C

SS

PD

L PIER

L ABUTMENT L PIER C

L ABUTMENT

80'

C

C

C

$$FILE$$$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$

BRIDGE PLAN

1"=80'

80' 0'

FENDER

FENDER

FENDER

68' Clearance

150' CHANNEL

206' APPROACH SPAN 329' MOVABLE SPAN 209' APPROACH SPAN

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

JUNE 17 2016 JUNE 6 2016

SHEET NO.

A-1

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA

GIWW CROSSING BRIDGE PLAN

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

SHEET C-3

RPC TASK LA23RR1

$$FILE$$

C-3
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

PRELIMINARY

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING

RJB

SSS

JUNE 6 2016

BRIDGE OVER BUCCANEER ROAD

C-4

SHEET C-4

PLAN

SCALE: „"=1'-0"

ELEVATION

SCALE: „"=1'-0"

SECTION

SCALE: •"=1'-0"

(SEGMENT A & C)

SECTION

SCALE: •"=1'-0"

(SEGMENT B)

TOE OF SLOPE TOE OF SLOPE

TOP OF SLOPE

TOP OF SLOPE TOP OF SLOPE

TOP OF SLOPE

ALIGNMENT: TANGENT

` PROPOSED BRIDGE` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

(TYP.)

2:1 SLOPE

(TYP.)

2:1 SLOPE

(TYP.)

2:1 SLOPE

(TYP.)

2:1 SLOPE

BUCCANEER ROAD

2" 2"

ASSEMBLY (TYP.)

HANDRAIL

PILE CAP (TYP.)

PRECAST CONCRETE BOX BEAM (TYP.)

30" P/S CONC.

C8x11.5 BRACING

PILE BENT w/

HP14x89 STEEL

` BUCCANEER ROAD

(TYP.)

CLASS 1 RIPRAP

1'-6" LAYER OF

` BENT #A1 ` BENT #B1 ` BENT #C1 ` BENT #C2

WINGWALL (TYP.)

PRECAST CONCRETE

END CAP (TYP.)

PRECAST CONCRETE

(SEGMENT C)

30'-1"

(SEGMENT B)

50'-2"

(SEGMENT A)

30'-1"

STEEL BEAM SPAN

W40x199 x 50'-0"

1

2 2

1

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL ASSEMBLY

(TYP.)

HANDRAIL ASSEMBLY

(TYP.)

CURB BEAM

(TYP.)

DECK PLATE

PLATE (TYP.)

†" DECK

` PROPOSED BRIDGE

` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

` PROPOSED BRIDGE

` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

BOX BEAM (TYP.)

30" P/S CONC.

W40x199 (TYP.)

(TYP.)

DIAPHRAGM

STEEL BEAM SPAN

W40x199 x 50'-0"

BOX BEAM (TYP.)

30" P/S CONC.

73°

VERT. CLEAR

16'-6" MIN.

110'-4" (INSIDE FACE TO INSIDE FACE OF BACKWALLS)

3'-10"

B/R TO LOW CHORD

4'-7Š "

B/R TO LOW CHORD

24'-0"+

-

GRADE:+TBD
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

$$PENTBLS$$$$DATE$$$$PLTDRVS$$$$FILE$$

CHECKED BY: 

DATE:

DRAWN BY: 

$$FILE$$

PRELIMINARY

RPC TASK LA23RR1

SHEET NO.

JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA

LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT

RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00

RJB

SSS

BRIDGE OVER BAYOU BARRIERE

JUNE 6 2016

SHEET C-5

C-5

PLAN

SCALE: „"=1'-0"

ELEVATION

SCALE: „"=1'-0"

BAYOU BARRIERE

FLOW

CANAL BANK CANAL BANK

PERMANENT SHORING PERMANENT SHORING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPOSED RAILROAD

RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPOSED RAILROAD

` BENT #1 ` BENT #2

ALIGNMENT: TANGENT

` PROPOSED BRIDGE` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

25'-0" 25'-0"

2"

2"

115'-4" (INSIDE FACE TO INSIDE FACE OF BACKWALLS)

SECTION

SCALE: ..."=1'-0"

DIAGRAM 

AREMA CLEARANCE

WATER LEVEL

DESIGN STORM

FREEBOARD

1'-0" MIN.

AS REQUIRED

SHORING WALL

PERMANENT

3'-0• "

` GIRDER ` GIRDER

` PROPOSED BRIDGE

` PROPOSED MAIN TRACK =

72°

LOW CHORD =

B/R TO

MIN. CLEAR

9'-0"

WATER LEVEL

NORMAL

+

-

67'-0"

BRIDGE SET LEVEL

115' THROUGH PLATE GIRDER SPAN

115' THROUGH PLATE GIRDER SPAN

BACKWALL (TYP.)

PRECAST CONCRETE

WINGWALL (TYP.)

PRECAST CONCRETE

CONCRETE ABUTMENT

CAST-IN-PLACE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: $$FILE$$ TJK 

GAD RPC TASK LA23RR1 SHEET NO. JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00 

JUN. 2016 

IMAGERY SOURCE: BING 

SHEET D-1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT-GRADE CROSSING 4TH STREET
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: $$FILE$$ TJK 

GAD RPC TASK LA23RR1 SHEET NO. JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00 JUN. 2016 IMAGERY SOURCE: BING 

SHEET D-5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT-GRADE CROSSING LA 23 (2 OF 2)
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: $$FILE$$ TJK 

GAD RPC TASK LA23RR1 SHEET NO. JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00 JUN. 2016 IMAGERY SOURCE: BING 

SHEET D-4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT-GRADE CROSSING LA 23 (1 OF 2)
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: $$FILE$$ TJK 

GAD RPC TASK LA23RR1 

SHEET NO. JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00 JUN. 2016 IMAGERY SOURCE: BING 

100' 50' 0 100' 200' 1"=100' SHEET D-3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT-GRADE CROSSING PETERS ROAD
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: $$FILE$$ TJK 

GAD RPC TASK LA23RR1 SHEET NO. JEFFERSON AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LA LA 23 NOGC RAILWAY RELOCATION PE/NEPA PROJECT RPC/FRA GRANT # FRR-RLD-0032-14-01-00 JUN. 2016 IMAGERY SOURCE: BING 

100' 50' 0 100' 200' 1"=100' SHEET D-2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT-GRADE CROSSING PETERS RD.
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix C

Right‐of‐Way and Relocation Map Set

   
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
!(

!(

!(

H a r v e y C a n a l

4th St

Brown Ave

Peters Rd

Pailet Ave

Grefer Ave

Bark St

1st Ave

US 90B EB 

St Joseph Ln

Destrehan Ave

US 90B WB 

Gold St

Brinker St

Jennie St

Marion St

14th St

9th St

8th St

5th St

Estalote Ave

Bark Dr

Grefer Ln

Pine Dr

6th St

Pailet Dr

Oak St

Texaco Ln

Pine St

Destrehan Ave

8th St

Grefer Ave

F

Estalote Ave

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 1 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
H a r v e y C a n a l

Peters Rd

Pailet Ave

Estalote Ave

US 90B EB 

Brown Ave

1st Ave

US 90B WB 

Esther St

14th St

16th St

Norman St

Grefer Ave

18th St

Destrehan Ave

Sidney St

Florence St

Stores St

Harold St

Sandoz St

Estalote Ave

Grefer Ave

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 2 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
H a r v e y C a n a l

Peters Rd

Pailet Ave

St Joseph Ln

Estalote Ave

1st Ave

36th St

Lester St

Aimee St

Joseph St

Sidney St

38th St

Destrehan Ave

41st St

Shirley St

Aimee St

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 3 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
H a r v e y C a n a l

Cousins Canal 

Floodwall

Lapalco Floodgate

M u r p h y C a n a l

Westbank 

Animal

Shelter

Peters Rd

Breaux Ave

St Joseph Ln

Joseph St

Destrehan Ave

Lapalco Blvd

Pailet Ave

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 4 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
Harvey Canal Westbank Levee

M u r p h y C a n a l

H a r v e y C a n a l H a r v e y C a n a l

Boomtown Floodwall

Peters Rd

Friendship Dr Stall Dr

F

Hampton Dr

Brighton Pl

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 5 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
!(

M u r p h y C a n a l

H a r v e y C a n a l

Peters Rd

Louise St

Sugarloaf Dr

Killington Dr

Aspen Dr

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 6 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
!(

!(

!(

!(

M u r p h y C a n a l

B a r a t a r i a B a y o u

Peters Rd

Concord Rd

Engineers Rd

Lac la Belle Dr

United Tugs Rd

Gunther Ln

Bayou Rd

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 7 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

I n t r a c o a s t a l W a t e r w a y

Concord Rd

Engineers Rd

Buccaneer Rd

Gunther Ln

United Tugs Rd

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 8 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
B a y o u B a r r i e r e

Buccaneer Rd

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 9 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
B a y o u B a r r i e r e

Mississippi River

Proposed Hero Yard

Buccaneer Rd

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 10 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
Proposed Hero Yard

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 11 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
Hwy 11 

Joy Ln

Cedar Dr

LA 23 

Clausen Rd

Christian Rd

Augusta St

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 12 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
M i s s i s s i p p i 

R i v e r

Hwy 11 

LA 23 

Joy Ln

Sewer Plant Rd

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 13 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
(!

(!

(!

M i s s i s s i p p i 

R i v e r

Hwy 11 

Walker Rd

Bergeron Dr

Cedar Dr

Clausen Rd

LA 23 

Oakville St

Christian Rd

Levee Rd

F

0 375 750 1,500

Feet

1 inch = 300 feet

ROW and Relocation Map Sheet 14 of 14

Existing NOGC Railway

Preferred Alternative

Peters Road Relocation

Parcels

Remnant Parcels

Preferred Alternative ROW

Peters Road Relocation ROW

Rail ROW

Relocations

!( Industrial

!( Residential
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix D

Preferred Alternative Estimate of Probable Cost

   
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
$ 245,106,349

$ 245,106,349

$ 2,451,063

$ 7,353,190

$ 4,902,127

$ 14,706,381

$ 259,812,730

$ 260,000,000

 Note 1: Includes Road Crossings, Track and Signals, Right-of-way, Earthwork, Subballast, Structures and Bridges as shown below.

Road Crossings

4th Street (Concrete) 130 LF $ 1,200 $ Public 156,000

Peters Road (Concrete) 140 LF $ 1,200 $ Public NB; 2-lane 168,000

Gold Street (Concrete) 45 LF $ 1,200 $ Public 54,000

Peters Road (Concrete) 250 LF $ 1,200 $ Public NB & SB; 4-lane 300,000

Relocated Peters Road (Concrete) 150 LF $ 1,200 $ Public 180,000

Access Road 1 (Wood) 45 LF $ 800 $ Private 36,000

Access Road 2 (Wood) 45 LF $ 800 $ Private 36,000

Access Road 3 (Wood) 45 LF $ 800 $ Private 36,000

LA 23 (Concrete) 125 LF $ 1,200 $ Public 150,000

Access Road 4 (Wood) 45 LF $ 800 $ Private 36,000

Industry Access Crossings (88, Wood) 3520 LF $ 800 $ 2,816,000 Average length of 40 feet all Private

Road Crossing Approaches (Concrete/Asphalt) 21 EA $ 18,000 $ 378,000

Road Crossing Approaches (Rock) 77 EA $ 8,000 $ 616,000

Signals, Gates and Lights (Set of 2) 6 EA $ 350,000 $ 2,100,000

4th St, Peters Road (2), Gold St., Relocated 

Peters Road, LA 23

Advance Warning Signs/Pavement Markings 6 EA $ 12,000 $ 72,000

Warning Signs (Industry/Access) 77 EA $ 4,000 $ 308,000

Total w/ Contingency 20% $ 8,930,400

Track and Signals

Preferred Alternative

Track 136# CWR w/ Wood Ties 113,449 TF 195 $ 22,122,555 $ 

Turnout #9 RBM Manual 22 EA 75,000 $ 1,650,000 $ 

Turnout #11 RBM Power 6 EA 125,000 $ 750,000 $ 

Signal / CTC 12.9 MI 1,500,000 $ 19,383,523 $ Harvey Canal to Belle Chasse

Total w/ Contingency 20% $ 52,687,293

Right-of-Way

Right-of-way Area 118.00 AC $ 108,900 $ 12,850,200

Includes Preferred Alternative, Peters Road 

Reconstruction, and remnant parcels 

No of Parcels 60 0 $ - $ -

Survey, Appraisal, Negotiations, Closing 60 EA $ 23,000 $ 1,380,000

Relocations 12 EA $ 200,000 $ 2,400,000

Total w/ Contingency 20% $ 19,956,240

Estimate of Probable Cost

TOTAL - Engineering, Environmental and Construction

Subtotal

Description

TOTAL - Engineering, Environmental and Construction (Rounded)

Environmental Mitigation (1%)

Final Design (3%)

Total Cost

Construction Management (2%)

Total

Preferred Alternative - Railroad Only (see Note 1)

Subtotal

Comments

Preferred Alternative

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit

Comments

Preferred Alternative

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost Comments

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost

Draft Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

July 2016 D-1
Earthwork

Clear and Grub 118.00 AC $ 5,000 $ Assume no clearing 590,000

Embankment CY 475,237 $ 8 $ 3,801,899

Assume 1 foot new subgrade over entire 

length (less Hooper Spur); include 3200' long 

embankment (30') on both sides of GIWW

Excavation CY 57,570 $ 5 $ 287,850

Assume 1.5 feet excavation over entire 

length (less Hooper Spur)

Stabilization SY 287,850 $ 5 $ 1,439,250

Assume 25 feet wide swath to be stabilized 

(entire length less Hooper Spur)

Total w/ Contingency 20% $ 7,342,799

Subballast

Subballast (12"; 3:1 Side Slopes) CY 60 64,764 $ 3,885,833 $ 

Assume 15 feet wide, 12" thick subballast 

section

Total w/ Contingency 10% $ 4,274,417

Structures / Bridges

Murphy Canal Bridge 160 TF $ 17,000 $ 2,720,000

GIWW Approach (North)/Bayou Barataria Bridge 2000 TF $ 10,000 $ 20,000,000

GIWW Swing Span Bridge 1 EA $ 96,821,000 $ 96,821,000 Reference NOGC Bridge Report 8/28/2015

GIWW Approach (South) Bridge 400 TF $ 10,000 $ 4,000,000

Buccaneer Road Bridge 110 TF $ 10,000 $ 1,100,000

Bayou Barriere Bridge 115 TF $ 17,000 $ 1,955,000

Total w/ Contingency 20% $ 151,915,200

Peters Road Reconstruction

Peters Road Reconstruction - rural 2-lane 1.65 Mile $ 3,500,000 $ 5,775,000

Unit Cost per LADOTD Bridge Design and 

Evaluation Manual, 2014

Total w/ Contingency 20% $ 6,930,000

Total Estimate of Probable Cost

$ 260,000,000

$ 6,930,000

$ 266,930,000

Total

Preferred Alternative

Total Estimate of Probable Cost

Peters Road Reconstruction

Description

Total Cost Comments

Reconstruction plus New Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit

Comments

Preferred Alternative

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost Comments

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost

Preferred Alternative

Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost Comments

Draft Environmental Assessment 

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project 

July 2016 D-2
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix E

Noise Models

   
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Transit Administration

Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet

Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.

version: 7/3/2007

Project: NOLA RR

Project Results Summary

Existing Ldn: 50 dBA

Total Project Ldn: 64 dBA

Receiver Parameters Total Noise Exposure: 64 dBA

Receiver: Receiver 1 Increase: 14 dB

Land Use Category: 2. Residential Impact?: Severe

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value): 50 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours

Dist to Mod. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 508 ft

Dist to Sev. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 195 ft

Noise Source Parameters

Number of Noise Sources: 2

Noise Source Parameters Source 1

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Diesel Electric Locomotive Source 1 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2 Leq(day): 56.2 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 56.2 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 62.6 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings 0

Adjustments Yes

No

No

No

Noise Source Parameters Source 2

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Rail Car Source 2 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110 Leq(day): 51.7 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 51.7 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 58.1 dBA

Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2): 63.9 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments Noise Barrier? No

Jointed Track? No

Embedded Track? No

Aerial Structure? No

64 dBA

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Noise Impact Criteria

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Moderate Impact

Severe Impact

Receiver 1

14 dB

0

5

10

15

20

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

Moderate Impact Severe Impact Receiver 1
Federal Transit Administration

Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet

Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.

version: 7/3/2007

Project: NOLA RR

Project Results Summary

Existing Ldn: 55 dBA

Total Project Ldn: 64 dBA

Receiver Parameters Total Noise Exposure: 64 dBA

Receiver: Receiver 1 Increase: 9 dB

Land Use Category: 2. Residential Impact?: Severe

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value): 55 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours

Dist to Mod. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 377 ft

Dist to Sev. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 153 ft

Noise Source Parameters

Number of Noise Sources: 2

Noise Source Parameters Source 1

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Diesel Electric Locomotive Source 1 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2 Leq(day): 56.2 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 56.2 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 62.6 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings 0

Adjustments Yes

No

No

No

Noise Source Parameters Source 2

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Rail Car Source 2 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110 Leq(day): 51.7 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 51.7 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 58.1 dBA

Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2): 63.9 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments Noise Barrier? No

Jointed Track? No

Embedded Track? No

Aerial Structure? No

64 dBA

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Noise Impact Criteria

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Moderate Impact

Severe Impact

Receiver 1

9 dB

0

5

10

15

20

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

Moderate Impact Severe Impact Receiver 1
Federal Transit Administration

Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet

Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.

version: 7/3/2007

Project: NOLA RR

Project Results Summary

Existing Ldn: 60 dBA

Total Project Ldn: 64 dBA

Receiver Parameters Total Noise Exposure: 65 dBA

Receiver: Receiver 1 Increase: 5 dB

Land Use Category: 2. Residential Impact?: Severe

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value): 60 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours

Dist to Mod. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 257 ft

Dist to Sev. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 109 ft

Noise Source Parameters

Number of Noise Sources: 2

Noise Source Parameters Source 1

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Diesel Electric Locomotive Source 1 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2 Leq(day): 56.2 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 56.2 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 62.6 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings 0

Adjustments Yes

No

No

No

Noise Source Parameters Source 2

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Rail Car Source 2 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110 Leq(day): 51.7 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 51.7 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 58.1 dBA

Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2): 63.9 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments Noise Barrier? No

Jointed Track? No

Embedded Track? No

Aerial Structure? No

64 dBA

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Noise Impact Criteria

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Moderate Impact

Severe Impact

Receiver 1

5 dB

0

5

10

15

20

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

Moderate Impact Severe Impact Receiver 1
Federal Transit Administration

Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet

Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.

version: 7/3/2007

Project: NOLA RR

Project Results Summary

Existing Ldn: 65 dBA

Total Project Ldn: 64 dBA

Receiver Parameters Total Noise Exposure: 68 dBA

Receiver: Receiver 1 Increase: 3 dB

Land Use Category: 2. Residential Impact?: Moderate

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value): 65 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours

Dist to Mod. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 161 ft

Dist to Sev. Impact Contour 

(Sources 1+2): 71 ft

Noise Source Parameters

Number of Noise Sources: 2

Noise Source Parameters Source 1

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Diesel Electric Locomotive Source 1 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2 Leq(day): 56.2 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 56.2 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 62.6 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Locos/train 2

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings 0

Adjustments Yes

No

No

No

Noise Source Parameters Source 2

Source Type: Fixed Guideway

Specific Source: Rail Car Source 2 Results

Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110 Leq(day): 51.7 dBA

Speed (mph) 20 Leq(night): 51.7 dBA

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542 Ldn: 58.1 dBA

Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2): 63.9 dBA

Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Rail Cars/train 110

Speed (mph) 20

Avg. Number of Events/hr 0.542

Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 100

Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments Noise Barrier? No

Jointed Track? No

Embedded Track? No

Aerial Structure? No

64 dBA

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Noise Impact Criteria

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Moderate Impact

Severe Impact

Receiver 1

3 dB

0

5

10

15

20

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed

(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

Moderate Impact Severe Impact Receiver 1
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix F

Additional Agency Coordination (USFWS, NMFS, and SHPO)

   
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

This page intentionally left blank.

   
10/17/2016 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Informal Consultation - LA 23 Railway Relocation Project 

Trahan, Amy <amy_trahan@fws.gov> 

Informal Consultation - LA 23 Railway Relocation Project 

1 message 

Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov> Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM 

To: "amy_trahan@fws.gov" <amy_trahan@fws.gov> 

Cc: "kparsons norpc.org" <kparsons@norpc.org>, "doree.magiera hdrinc.com" <doree.magiera@hdrinc.com> 

Hi Amy, 

I am submitting the attached letter to open up informal ESA consultation on the LA 23 Railway Relocation Project in 

Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes. Please let me know if you would like me to mail the hard copy as well. 

Thanks, 

Kevin 

Kevin A. Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Kevin.wright@dot.gov 

202-493-0845 

This projsct has beer. rav:mvrd for riifac!s to Fodera! trust rescurcos 

unde'. our juris:1iction and :;1.;rr3.:Ly ;)m\acted by Ira End.r ngsrad 

Species Act of 1973 (Ar;t} The r ·ci:,.~ a~" r·,·r~·-scJ v f~ J"""""•J •'I ... ,,.. I~ I ) 

( ) Wili !:ave no 1,ffoct un H·,o,,e resou:cst: 

(v(!s no~ l:rrnlto adV&r5e.~ ;f[e,,t hose '.:":':JC~':. "~ I \>.S 

This fmding futf1lls H'ic ;equ1reme1,,s :.w:for S9i., ',n /(· _<.::) of the Act. 

~!( /1///J .~' //£~ ______ // !(f / /_~- Ac,1~g Sur:_'.,rvis"'.r .., ,: 8 tcw1s1ana : :old Office 

U.S. F:s~ und W;!alife t:er. 'c~, 

~ LA 23 SIGNED Informal Consultation Letter - USFWS.pdf 

5362K 

https :/Imai I .google.com/mai l/u/O/?ui=2&i k= 52e06bdc4c&view= pt&search= i nbox&th= 15767b9a898f4cd3&si m I= 15767b9a898f4cd3 1/1 
1

From: Richard Hartman ‐ NOAA Federal [mailto:richard.hartman@noaa.gov]  

Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 1:13 PM

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Subject: Re: LA 23 Railway Relocation ‐ EFH Consultation

Kevin - EFH coordination will not be necessary for this project. Looking at the figures, the project will not 

impact tidally influenced wetlands. As such, there is no potential impact to habitat supportive of federally 

managed marine fishery species. Such tidally influenced habitats are designated as essential fish habitat. Since 

no impacts, coordination is not necessary. 

Richard Hartman 

Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/NMFS 

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov> wrote: 

Hi Richard, 

 

My name is Kevin Wright and I’m with the Federal Railroad Administration. I’m emailing you regarding the 

LA 23 Railway Relocation project in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, LA. I was hoping to open up the 

conversation about Essential Fish Habitat and see if there was any mitigation that would be required for this 

project. I have attached the package that we submitted to USFWS as well as the concurrence we received from 

them. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. I am fairly new to this process and am not 

entirely sure how it’s supposed to go. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Kevin 

 

Kevin A. Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 
2

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Kevin.wright@dot.gov

202-493-0845

 

 
May 24, 2017 

Rhonda Smith 

Earth Search, Inc. 

P.O. Box 770336 

New Orleans, LA 70177 

Re: Draft Report 

La Division of Archaeology Report No. 22-5581 

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and NRHP Research for the LA 23 New Orleans Gulf Coast 

Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

Dear Rhonda Smith: 

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 15, 2017 and two copies of the above referenced

report. 

In reference to historic standing structures, we concur with your evaluation that the River Oaks Academy 

buildings are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Register) under Criterion A 

for its association with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the local impact of Federal mandated 

desegregation in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana and under Criterion B for its association with Leander 

Perez, Sr. However, we are of the opinion that Hero Park is eligible for listing in the Register only for its 

history under Criterion A and not eligible under Criterion B for its association with George Hero, Sr. As 

such, we concur with your assessment that construction of the Project’s preferred alternative would result 

in an Adverse Effect on the River Oaks Academy/Hero Park site. 

Also as prescribed in the Division of Historic Preservation’s Historic Standing Structures Guidelines, 

please submit archival paper and PDF digital copies of the Louisiana Historic Resource Inventory forms 

and an archival paper map delineating the location of the 23 historic standing structures recorded in the 

project survey. 

We are unable to concur that the portion of archaeological site 16PL249 is ineligible for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The phrase on Pg. 6-35 stating that “there is no 

evidence of intact archaeological deposits” within the right of way is insufficient justification for a 

“not eligible” determination for a site or a portion of a site. The site should be discussed more 

explicitly in terms of each the NRHP criteria, particularly given its association with the NRHPeligible property on which it sits. Given our recommendation that Hero’s Park is eligible for NRHP 

listing under Criterion A for local history, we suggest that 16PL249 should not be uncoupled from the 

historic properties with which it is associated. 
In addition to the above, we are unable to determine if there are intact deposits beneath the River 

Oaks Academy itself. If this building is demolished as part of this undertaking, we would request 

additional monitoring. 

In Chapter 6, Pg. 1, please Provide a definition of high vs. low probability for an area to yield 

archaeological sites, and include a map of the direct APE with the high and low probability areas 

indicated. 

We look forward to receiving a revised draft of the report addressing our above comments. If 

shapefiles are available for the survey area, we request those as well. If you have any questions, 

please contact Emily Dale at the Division of Archaeology by email at edale@crt.la.gov or by 

phone at 225-342-8166. 

Sincerely, 

Kristen Sanders, 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 
22-5581

7/12/17
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018    

Appendix G

Memorandum of Agreement between FRA and SHPO (Draft)
Environmental Assessment

LA 23 NOGC Railway Relocation PE/NEPA Project  

March 2018   

This page intentionally left blank.
1 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

AND

THE LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

REGARDING 

THE DEMOLITION OF A RIVER OAKS ACADEMY BUILDING 

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA 

 WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is administering Fiscal Year 

2009 grant funding (Grant #FR-RLD-0032-14-01-00) for preliminary engineering (PE) and 

environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

the Louisiana Highway (LA) 23 Railway Relocation Project (Project); 

WHEREAS, the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) for Jefferson, Orleans, 

Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa 

Parishes in Louisiana is the grant recipient for the PE/NEPA funding because the “Study Area” 

for the Project is located in two parishes and will have regional impacts and benefits; and 

WHEREAS, the purpose of the Project is to relieve automobile traffic congestion, 

improve safety, improve emergency access and evacuation, enhance quality of life by reducing 

noise and improving mobility, and improve efficiency of rail operations by removing numerous 

at-grade crossings; and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with NEPA, FRA and RPC prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to evaluate alternative alignments for relocating the NOGC rail line, operated 

by the New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company (NOGC), and the Preferred Alternative 

evaluated in the EA consists of extending rail track from 4th Street to LA 23 along Peter’s Road 

in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, approximately 9.3 miles long, and reconstruction of 

Peters Road between Lapalco Boulevard and Murphy Canal; and 

WHEREAS, as of the date of execution of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) no 

federal funding or Construction Project Proponent has been identified to advance the Project 

through final design and construction; and 

WHEREAS, the Project would be an FRA “Undertaking” under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (54 U.S.C § 306108) (Section 106) in 

the event FRA provides financial assistance in the future for construction of the Project; and 

WHEREAS, FRA would be the federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 

106 if the Project becomes an Undertaking; and 

WHEREAS, FRA consulted with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) pursuant to the Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR Part 800; and 
2 

WHEREAS, FRA defined the Project’s area of potential effect (APE) described in 

Attachment A, as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d); and 

WHEREAS, SHPO concurred with the APE on July 12, 2017; and 

WHEREAS, FRA determined that the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site located 

within the APE is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 

SHPO concurred with FRA’s determination in a letter dated July 12, 2017; and 

WHEREAS, the Hero Park/River Oaks Academy site located at 10911 LA 23, 

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana hereafter is referred to as the “historic property” in this MOA, 

and consists of two buildings constructed in 1966 as the River Oaks Academy surrounded by 

large oak trees; and 

WHEREAS, FRA determined the Project, if constructed with financial assistance from 

FRA, will have an adverse effect on the historic property due to the destruction of five (5) oak 

trees associated with Hero Park and a former plantation and demolition of one (1) of the two (2) 

River Oaks Academy buildings; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in letters dated June 16, 2017, invited Hero Lands Company and 

Plaquemines Parish to be Consulting Parties in the Section 106 process and Hero lands Company 

accepted the invitation and Plaquemines Parish declined to participate; and 

WHEREAS, in an email dated August 31, 2017, FRA invited RPC to be an invited 

signatory to this MOA and RPC declined; and 

WHEREAS, in an email dated September 25, 2017, FRA invited Hero Lands Company, 

as the owner of the historic property that would be adversely affected if the Project were to be 

constructed, to be an invited signatory to this MOA and Hero Lands Company accepted in a 

response email dated December 14, 2017; and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(1), on October 23, 2017 FRA 

notified the ACHP of its adverse effect determination with specified documentation via the 

ACHP’s e106 system, and the ACHP responded to FRA in a letter dated November 6, 2017 that 

it has chosen not to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(1)(iii); and 

NOW, THEREFORE, FRA and SHPO (each a Signatory and together the Signatories) 

agree that the Project, if it becomes an Undertaking, will be implemented in accordance with the 

following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the Undertaking on historic 

properties. 

STIPULATIONS 

FRA will ensure that the following measures are carried out: 

I. APPLICABILITY 
3 

A. This MOA would apply to FRA’s Undertaking and would only bind FRA if FRA 

provides financial assistance for construction of the Project. 

B. This MOA may apply should another Federal agency have an Undertaking as part 

of the Project; that agency may agree to comply with the terms of this MOA and 

become a Signatory to fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities as provided for in 

Stipulation VIII. 

C. If the Project becomes an Undertaking, this MOA would be amended in 

accordance with Stipulation VII to add the Construction Project Proponent (i.e., 

the recipient of future FRA financial assistance) as a Signatory to this MOA, and 

the Construction Project Proponent would be responsible for assisting FRA in 

ensuring the stipulations herein are fulfilled. 

II. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS 

A. FRA will require that all historic preservation and documentation work identified 

in Stipulation III to be performed by the Construction Project Proponent pursuant 

to this MOA is carried out by or under the direct supervision of a person or 

persons meeting at a minimum of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, 

the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 

44738-9) in the disciplines of History or Architectural History. 

B. Prior to the commencement of any historic preservation and documentation work 

stipulated in this MOA, FRA will determine if the individual(s) selected by the 

Construction Project Proponent to perform the work meet the qualifications in 

Stipulation II and provide SHPO with the résumé(s) of the individual or 

individuals that will perform or supervise the performance of the photographic 

recordation and the narrative history. If SHPO does not concur that the 

individuals selected to perform the photographic recordation and narrative 

history meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 

FRA and the Construction Project Proponent will consult with SHPO to resolve 

the areas of concern. If SHPO does not provide comments to FRA on the 

qualifications within 15 business days following FRA’s e-mail forwarding the 

résumés and any additional background information, the Construction Project 

Proponent, under direction of FRA, may proceed with producing the recordation 

and the narrative history specified in Stipulation III. 

III. MITIGATION MEASURES 

A. HABS Recordation 

FRA will ensure that the Construction Project Proponent records the historic 

property in accordance with the following: 
4 

1. FRA and the Construction Project Proponent will consult with the 

National Park Service (NPS) Heritage Documentation Programs - 

Southeast Regional Office to determine the extent of the documentation 

(e.g., format and length of narrative, quantity of photographs, and extent 

of documentation using historic or new measured drawings) prior to 

beginning the work. 

2. The Construction Project Proponent will complete the photo-recordation 

described in this Stipulation prior to demolition of the historic property. 

3. The Construction Project Proponent will produce Large Format 

Photographs (see NPS Guidelines for Architecture and Engineering 

Documentation, Federal Register/Vol. 68, no. 139/Monday, July 21, 2003) 

of the historic property’s exterior elevations and character-defining 

interior and landscape features. 

4. The Construction Project Proponent will record the historic property to 

Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation Level II 

standards, as outlined in the publication, Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering 

Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards, available at 

http://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/standards.pdf. Documentation Level II 

includes a narrative with the history and description of the resource, 

archival photographs, copies of selected existing historic drawings and/or 

measured drawings to the extent it is necessary to document the historic 

property. Research should draw upon information about the historic 

property in the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, LA 23 New Orleans 

Gulf Coast Railway Relocation Project, Jefferson and Plaquemines 

Parishes, Louisiana (June 2017). 

5. The Construction Project Proponent will provide the draft documentation 

to NPS and SHPO, with a copy to FRA, for review and comment as 

described in Stipulation IV. 

6. Following approval of the draft documentation by NPS and SHPO, the 

Construction Project Proponent will prepare five (5) final archival copies 

of the recordation materials including: 8x10 black and white copies of the 

large format photographs, the historic narrative, the original presentation 

drawings, and six (6) archival CDs with the digital images and narrative. 

FRA will forward two (2) copies of the recordation materials to SHPO, 

and SHPO will forward one (1) copy to the State Library and one (1) copy 

to the State Archives. FRA will transmit one (1) archival copy of the 

recordation materials to NPS Heritage Documentation Programs for 

inclusion in the HABS Collection at the Library of Congress. 

B. Historical Marker 
5 

1. The Construction Project Proponent will develop draft content for a 

historical marker (marker) to commemorate the historic property. The 

Construction Project Proponent will submit the draft content of the marker 

to FRA, SHPO, and Hero Lands Company for review and comment as 

described in Stipulation IV. 

2. Once the content of the marker is agreed upon among the Construction 

Project Proponent, FRA, SHPO, and Hero Lands Company, the 

Construction Project Proponent will file an application for a historical 

marker with the Louisiana Historical Marker Program in accordance with 

La. R.S. 48:271(A). The Louisiana Historical Marker Program guidelines 

and application are available at: 

https://www.crt.state.la.us/Assets/Tourism/industrypartners/LAHistoricalMarkerGuidelines&Application2017_ext.pdf. 

3. If the Louisiana Historical Marker Program approves the application, the 

Construction Project Proponent will incur all costs for production, 

installation, maintenance, and repair of the marker. 

4. The Construction Project Proponent will coordinate with FRA and Hero 

Lands Company regarding an appropriate location to install the marker, 

taking into account such factors as safety and visibility. 

 

5. The property owner, Hero Lands Company, agrees to allow the 

Construction Project Proponent access to the historic property to install, 

maintain and/or repair the marker in accordance with the Louisiana 

Historical Marker Program guidelines. 

6. The Construction Project Proponent will coordinate with and receive 

permission from Hero Lands Company prior to accessing the historic 

property for any installation, repair and/or maintenance activity. 

IV. PREPARATION and REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS 

FRA, SHPO, and Hero Lands Company agree to provide comments to the 

Construction Project Proponent on all studies, reports, and other documentation 

arising from this MOA within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of complete 

information. If the Construction Project Proponent does not receive comments from 

the other signatories and concurring party within the thirty (30) calendar day review 

period, the Construction Project Proponent may assume that the non-responding 

party(ies) has no comments. The Construction Project Proponent will consult with 

responding parties as appropriate to ensure that all comments received within the 

thirty (30) calendar-day review period are considered and the documentation revised 

accordingly before being finalized. 
6 

V. EFFECTIVE DATE 

This MOA will be effective as of the date of obligation of Federal financial assistance 

to construct the Project after this MOA has been executed by all Signatories and a 

copy filed with the ACHP. Within 30 days of the date of obligation of Federal 

financial assistance, FRA will begin the process of amending this MOA in 

accordance with Stipulation VII in order to specify the Construction Project 

Proponent and add that entity as a signatory to the MOA. 

VI. DURATION 

This MOA will expire if its terms are not carried out within five (5) years from its

effective date. Prior to such time, FRA may consult with the other Signatories to 

reconsider the terms of the MOA and amend it in accordance with Stipulation VII. 

VII. AMENDMENTS 

A. In the event that a Construction Project Proponent is identified and FRA is 

providing financial assistance for construction of the Project, FRA will inform all 

Signatories and amend this MOA. The Construction Project Proponent will 

become a Signatory to the MOA. 

B. Any Signatory to this MOA may request that it be amended. The amendment will 

be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the Signatories is filed with the 

ACHP. 

VIII. ADOPTABILITY 

In the event that a Federal agency other than FRA is considering financial assistance, 

permits, licenses, or approvals for the Project, such Federal agency may become a 

Signatory to this MOA as a means of complying with Section 106. To become a 

Signatory to this MOA, the agency official must provide written notice to the 

Signatories that the agency agrees to the terms of the MOA, specifying the extent of 

the agency’s intent to participate in the MOA, and identifying the lead Federal agency 

for the Undertaking. The participation of the agency is subject to approval by the 

Signatories, who must respond to the written notice within 30 days or the approval 

will be considered implicit. Any other modifications to the MOA will be considered 

in accordance with Stipulation VII. 

IX. POST-REVIEW CHANGES 

If the Construction Project Proponent proposes changes to the Project that may result 

in additional or new effects on historic properties, the Construction Project Proponent 

will notify FRA and SHPO of such changes. Before the Construction Project 

Proponent takes any action that may result in additional or new effects on historic 

properties, FRA, SHPO, the Construction Project Proponent, and other consulting 
7 

parties as appropriate, must consult to determine the appropriate course of action. 

This may include, as appropriate, revision to the APE, assessment of effects to 

historic properties, and additional treatment measures to resolve adverse effects. 

X. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES 

If properties are discovered during Project construction that may be historically 

significant or unanticipated effects on historic properties are identified, FRA and the 

Construction Project Proponent will comply with 36 CFR § 800.13 by consulting 

with SHPO and, if applicable, federally recognized tribal organizations that may 

attach religious and/or cultural significance to the affected property; and by 

developing and implementing avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures with 

the concurrence of SHPO and, if applicable, federally recognized tribal organizations. 

XI. MONITORING AND REPORTING 

If the Project receives federal assistance for construction and therefore becomes an 

Undertaking, the Construction Project Proponent will provide FRA, SHPO and Hero 

Lands Company with a summary report detailing work undertaken pursuant to the 

MOA’s terms each year following the effective date of this MOA until it expires or is 

terminated. This report will include any scheduling changes proposed, any problems 

encountered, and any disputes or objections received in the Construction Project 

Proponent’s efforts to carry out the terms of this MOA. 

XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

Should any Signatory to this MOA object at any time to any actions proposed or the 

manner in which the terms of the MOA are implemented, FRA will consult with such 

Signatory to resolve the objection. If FRA determines that such objection cannot be 

resolved within thirty (30) days, FRA will: 

A. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s proposed 

resolution, to the ACHP with a copy to the other Signatories to this MOA, and 

request that the ACHP provide FRA with its advice on the resolution of the 

objection within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the documentation. 

B. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty 

(30) calendar day time period, FRA may make a decision on the dispute and 

proceed accordingly. 

C. FRA will document this decision in a written response to the objection that takes 

into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the Signatories and 

provide the ACHP and Signatories with a copy of such written response. 

D. FRA may then proceed according to its decision. 
8 

E. The Signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the 

terms of the MOA that are not the subject of the dispute. 

XIII. TERMINATION 

If any Signatory to this MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried 

out, that Signatory will immediately consult with the other Signatories to attempt to 

develop an amendment per Stipulation VII. If within thirty (30) days (or another time 

period agreed to by all Signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, any Signatory 

may terminate the MOA upon written notification to the other Signatories. Once the 

MOA is terminated, and prior to work continuing on the Undertaking, FRA must 

either (a) execute a new MOA pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6 or (b) request, take into 

account, and respond to the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR§ 800.7. FRA will 

notify the Signatories as to the course of action it will pursue. 

Execution of this MOA by FRA and SHPO and implementation of its terms evidence that FRA 

has taken into account the effects of this Undertaking on historic properties and afforded the 

ACHP an opportunity to comment. 
9 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

AND

LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

REGARDING 

THE LOUISIANA HIGHWAY (LA) 23 RAILWAY RELOCATION PROJECT 

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION - SIGNATORY 

By: _____________________________________________Date _________________________ 

Marlys Osterhues 

Chief, Environmental and Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 
10

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

AND

LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

REGARDING 

THE LOUISIANA HIGHWAY (LA) 23 RAILWAY RELOCATION PROJECT 

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER - SIGNATORY 

By: _____________________________________________Date _________________________ 

Kristin P. Sanders 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 
11

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

AND

LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

REGARDING 

THE LOUISIANA HIGHWAY (LA) 23 RAILWAY RELOCATION PROJECT 

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA 

HERO LANDS COMPANY – INVITED SIGNATORY 

By: _____________________________________________Date _________________________ 

Allen Hero, Manager 

Hero Lands Company